A subsequent formal arrest and remand order cannot cure an earlier illegal police detention, the Allahabad High Court has ruled, invoking the legal doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” to order the immediate release of a Prayagraj resident and grant him compensation of Rs 30,000.
In an order delivered on September 28, a division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev allowed a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Ravi Chaurasiya. The judges held that where an individual’s initial confinement is unlawful, any subsequent arrest and judicial remand stemming from it are fundamentally compromised. Comparing the original illegal detention to a poisonous tree and the ensuing proceedings to its fruit, the bench held that such actions infringe upon constitutional guarantees under Article 22.
Unlawful Custody and Belated Arrest
Chaurasiya was picked up by personnel from the Soraon police station from Ayodhya on September 14 and brought to Prayagraj without any official record being made of his custody. His mother visited the police station on September 15 to check on his condition and subsequently approached the high court with a habeas corpus plea challenging his detention.
Police formally entered Chaurasiya’s arrest in the general diary only at 10:45 am on September 16, subsequently conducting a medical examination and presenting him before a judicial magistrate for remand. The court found that Chaurasiya had been held in police lock-up for approximately 31 hours without being produced before a magistrate, exceeding the mandatory 24-hour statutory window. The bench further observed that the formalisation of his arrest occurred only after authorities became aware of the habeas corpus petition.
Rejection of Police Explanation and Procedural Breaches
During the proceedings, the high court examined station CCTV records and reviewed counter-affidavits submitted by the Soraon station house officer and the investigating officer, both of whom conceded that Chaurasiya had been held at the facility. The station house officer claimed that the omission of Chaurasiya’s arrival from the general diary was an accidental oversight.
The bench rejected this explanation, stating that an experienced officer would not fail to document an individual brought to a station and placed in detention.
The court also identified a violation of Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which protects a detainee’s right to consult an advocate of their choice during an investigation. The bench clarified that this statutory obligation applies as soon as a suspect is brought to a police station for interrogation, even prior to a formal arrest or the filing of formal accusations.
Precedent, Compensation, and Disciplinary Inquiry
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, the high court observed that arrests found unconstitutional for violating Article 22(1) render any resultant remand orders invalid.
Along with directing Chaurasiya’s immediate discharge provided he is not required in any other matter, the high court awarded him Rs 30,000 in compensation. The bench instructed the Prayagraj police commissioner to institute an inquiry to determine accountability for the illegal detention and initiate appropriate measures against those responsible.
The judges also expressed formal displeasure regarding the Soraon station house officer’s actions, directing that the reprimand be placed in his service record should the departmental inquiry substantiate negligence. The bench noted that law enforcement authorities remain free to arrest Chaurasiya again, provided they strictly follow statutory procedures and established judicial safeguards.
