The Allahabad High Court has directed its Registrar General to proceed under Section 379 of the BNSS after finding that the police fabricated an arrest memo and committed perjury before the Court in a habeas corpus case from Aligarh. A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev also allowed the habeas corpus petition, holding that the grounds of arrest given to the petitioner were perfunctory and inadequate for him to file a bail application.
Background
The petitioner, Junaid, was held in custody in FIR Crime No. 650 of 2026 under Sections 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS (corresponding to Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC), registered at Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh. He was allegedly taken into custody on 06.08.2026 at 3:00 a.m. and held at Police Chowki Jamalpur, District Aligarh.
The petitioner’s case was that the arrest memo did not contain the details required under the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Mohit Singh, assisted by Advocate Subir Lal, appearing for the petitioner, drew the Court’s attention to the arrest memo filed with the rejoinder affidavit. Under the column for reasons for arrest, the memo recorded only “मुकदमा उपरोक्त में”.
During the arguments, Senior Advocate Mohit Singh also disclosed what the Court described as an offence committed against the Court itself by the State. The State’s counter affidavit had annexed a different version of the arrest memo.
To support this argument, the petitioner filed a certified copy of the arrest memo that had been placed before the remand Judge. This copy was identical to the one given to the petitioner.
Allahabad High Court on Fabrication of Arrest Memo
On the first issue, the Court observed, “The grounds of arrest are perfunctory.”
Comparing the two arrest memos, the Bench found that the Investigating Officer had made an addition to Item No. 12. This was done after the arrest memo was given to the petitioner and after it was placed before the remand Magistrate. Item No. 13 was also altered to state that the petitioner had fabricated valuable security and defrauded people on that basis. The Court noted that this entry was never part of the original arrest memo.
The Court said the entries in Item Nos. 12 and 13 were fabricated, perhaps after the habeas corpus petition was filed, “which clearly reflect that fabricated document was placed before this Court along with the counter affidavit.”
The Bench also noted that the counter affidavit denied the existence of CCTV cameras at the Chowki. However, colour photographs annexed to the rejoinder affidavit clearly showed CCTV cameras on the gate at the entrance to the Chowki.
The Court concluded, “Thus, the police have indulged in fabrication of the arrest memo and perjury before this Court.”
The Bench did not blame the officer who swore the counter affidavit. It noted that he was not the Investigating Officer and had nothing to do with the case, and that the records he perused may already have been fabricated by the Investigating Officer. The Court added, “The Court takes serious note of the offence committed by the police before this Court.”
Outcome
The Court allowed the petition on the ground of deficiency in disclosing the grounds of arrest. It ordered that the petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The release was without prejudice to his re-arrest, subject to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol vs. State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 1022.
On the offence committed by the police, the Court directed the Registrar General to proceed under Section 379 of the BNSS for cases mentioned in Section 215 of the BNSS, since the offence was committed in a judicial proceeding. If, after inquiry, the Registrar General is satisfied that an offence relating to fabrication of documents and perjury has prima facie been committed, he is to file a case before the court of competent jurisdiction against those found prima facie involved.
Case Title: Junaid and another vs. State of U.P. and 4 others
Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1389 of 2026
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev
Date: October 14, 2026
