Allahabad High Court, in its important decision, has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to give a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to a person. This person was arrested and kept in ‘illegal detention’ despite an interim order of the High Court, which had banned his arrest. The court has also said that during the next hearing, information regarding compensation and action taken against the police inspector should also be given.
The High Court, in its order dated May 29, also directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the Inspector i.e. Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned police station for “negligence in proper discharge of official duty, violation of the order passed by the High Court and act of indiscipline”.
Petition filed against action against FIR
The bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a Habeas Corpus petition filed by Anil Soni. According to the petitioner, an FIR was lodged against him by a woman at Etawah police station in Siddharthnagar district under Section 69 of the Indian Justice Code (having physical relations by deception) and other sections, as well as under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Whereas the petitioner allegedly had a love affair with the woman for the last 2 years.
Earlier, the petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the FIR. On April 1, during the hearing of the case, another division bench of the High Court had passed an interim order, specifically staying his arrest in relation to that FIR. Although this order was uploaded on the High Court website on 6 April, the concerned inspector arrested him on 4 April itself.
Brother had given information on the day of arrest
Then in the habeas corpus petition, the petitioner stated that his brother had prepared a notarized affidavit on the very day of his arrest, so that the Inspector could be informed about the interim order of the High Court. Even his lawyer himself contacted the Inspector, but the petitioner was arrested.
During the hearing, the government lawyer justified the arrest by arguing that the Inspector was bound to act due to non-production of an interim order staying the arrest. However, the bench rejected this argument of the state and said that the interim order was given in the presence of the government pleader and the complainant’s lawyer. Therefore, the bench said that all the respondents were fully aware of this order.
The bench also noted that even after the filing of the present petition, on which replies were sought from the respondents, the petitioner was not released from jail. Taking strong exception to the facts of the case, the High Court bench expressed concern over what it termed an “unfortunate trend”.
Lawyers do not give information about HC decisions!
The bench also observed, “We have observed that this unfortunate practice is being promoted by the State counsel not informing the police officers about the orders passed by the Court, due to which the officers do not comply with the orders passed by this Court, or the police officers show disrespect towards the orders of the Court and they act in a mala fide manner.”
While fixing July 13 as the next date of hearing, the High Court gave strict instructions to the concerned Superintendent of Police to file a compliance affidavit regarding compensation to the petitioner and also to provide information about the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Inspector.
Leave a Reply