Dragged out in his ‘lungi’: Allahabad High Court orders UP government to pay Rs 25,000 for 24-hour illegal detention

Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar granted monetary compensation to the petitioner.

24-hour detention

• The petitioner’s case was that he had come to his native village to look after his agricultural property there.
• It was alleged that the police officer entered the petitioner’s house on November 26, 2022, dragged him out while he was dressed only in a lungi and kurta, and took him first to the police outpost and then to Handia police station, where he remained confined for about 24 hours, following a complaint of domestic violence lodged by the petitioner’s relative.
• He also alleged that the officer demanded a bribe of Rs 20,000 for his release.
• The petitioner’s son sent a complaint about this incident to the chief minister of UP, the director general of police, and the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, but all in vain.
• The petitioner then moved high court seeking direction for an inquiry into the matter by any other superior police officer.

‘Recklessly violated fundamental right’

The bench noted that there was no outright denial of the allegations that the petitioner had been forcibly taken to the police station and detained in the lockup. In the absence of a categorical denial, the court held that the fact of illegal detention would be deemed admitted.

The court observed that the police had little business in the matter unless there was a definitive cognisable offence committed.

Rejecting the police version that the parties had voluntarily arrived at the police station and entered into a compromise, the court remarked that it was implausible that a person accused in a domestic dispute would simply walk into a police station to amicably settle the matter with a police officer.

The court remarked that the police officer was not a spiritual guru, a panch parmeshwar or a community leader, to whom the petitioner and his relative would head out voluntarily to submit their dispute for guidance and amicable settlement.

It observed that the officer recklessly violated the most fundamental essence of most valuable fundamental right by dragging the petitioner out of his home on the basis of a complaint, he was not authorised to act upon, and, then confining him in the police lockup for 24 hours without the authority of law.

“The holding of a disciplinary inquiry into the conduct of a police officer is essentially an administrative function of the Government or the superior officers of the police. Even if that relief is granted and Dubey punished in departmental proceedings, it would not remedy the wrong which the petitioner has suffered on account of illegal deprivation of his liberty,” the court noted.

The court held that the petitioner was illegally deprived of his liberty by the police officer, in the colour of exercise of authority of the state, and for the aforesaid act, the petitioner must be given monetary recompense.

Accordingly the court allowed the plea and granted compensation to the petitioner.

The court granted liberty to the state government to recover the amount from errant police officer, and clarified that the compensation awarded in the writ proceedings would not prevent the petitioner from instituting a civil suit seeking higher damages for his illegal detention.