‘Power to arrest not justification’: Allahabad High Court slams UP police for jailing two men in ‘mistaken identity’ cases

Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter, said the Allahabad High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

‘Power to Arrest one thing, justification another’

• No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so.
• An existence of the power to arrest is one thing.
• The justification for the exercise of it is quite another.
• The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so.
• Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person.
• No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person.
• It would be prudent for a police officer, in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen.
• Perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation.
• The genuineness of a complaint and a reasonable belief, both should verify the person’s complicity to effect arrest.
• Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.
• The recommendations of the police commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom.
• A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence.
• There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.

Proceedings set aside, action directed

• Allowing both applications, the high court set aside the cognisance order dated November 17, 2006, the order dated July 1, 2025 and all consequential proceedings against the applicants in both matters.
• The court directed the police commissioner of Lucknow, and the superintendent of police, Sitapur, to initiate appropriate action against the erring officers responsible for the negligent arrests and to submit a compliance report within two months.

Liberty to seek compensation

• While refraining from awarding immediate compensation, the court granted liberty to the applicants to approach the high court under Article 226 for appropriate relief in light of the harm suffered due to unlawful arrest.
• The reference to compensation jurisprudence signals that the door remains open for monetary redress if the petitioners choose to pursue it.

Two cases, common error

• The petitions arose out of two separate criminal proceedings- one registered in Lucknow for offences of gangrape, causing hurt by means of poison, intoxicating drugs and another at Sitapur for offences of cheating and criminal intimidation and intentional insult with intent to breach peace.
• In both matters, the applicants argued that they were not the real accused but were arrested because their names matched those of the actual suspects.
• In the Sitapur case, the defence highlighted discrepancies in parental details.
• The complainant’s own testimony indicated that the accused Om Prakash was the son of Sohan Lal and Bhagwati Devi, whereas the applicant’s mother had a different name altogether.
• Despite this, the arrest was carried out without reconciling the identifying particulars .
• Similarly, in the Lucknow case, the petitioner contended that he had no connection whatsoever with the complainant and that no material evidence existed to link him to the alleged offence.

State admits factual mistake

• During the hearing, the state conceded that a factual mistake had occurred.
• According to submissions recorded in the order, incomplete details in the non-bailable warrant and reliance on local information led to the arrest of the wrong individual.
• The court observed that the record did not disclose any material establishing the identity of the applicants as the persons against whom criminal proceedings had been initiated.

Supreme Court precedents revisited

• The court placed the issue within the broader constitutional framework by referring to several landmark judgments of the Supreme Court including Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation which clarified that even in cognizable offences, arrest is not mandatory and must satisfy the necessity test.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar which cautioned against routine arrests and mandated safeguards.
  Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, recognising compensation for unlawful detention.
• Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta on awarding compensation in public law proceedings where fundamental rights are violated.
• Drawing from these rulings, the court reiterated that arrest cannot be justified merely on suspicion.
  There must be reasonable grounds and demonstrable necessity.