Allahabad HC Declares Arrest Of A Man Unlawful, Frees Him And Orders FIR Against IO Who Inserted Reasons For Arrest Later

It is definitely a matter of paramount significance to note that while applying its judicial mind and sticking firmly to what is legal, the Allahabad High Court which is the biggest High Court in not only just India, in not only just Asia, in not only just Asia and Africa, in not only just few continents but in all the continents all over the world which has just no parallel anywhere in the world moat astonishingly even after the partition of Uttar Pradesh into Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand on November 9, 2000 in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mohd. Yaseen Vs State of UP and 3 others in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 1626 of 2026 that was pronounced just recently on November 4, 2026 while deciding a habeas corpus petition has minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably that the arrest of a man in an abetment of suicide case was unlawful because the reasons for arrest and the grounds of arrest were never communicated to him as the law requires. It merits noting that the Court while catching the bull by the horns also further directed the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad, to forthwith get an FIR registered against the investigating officer (IO), who, the Court found, appeared to have inserted the missing particulars into the reasons for arrest after the event. We also need to note that this noteworthy verdict was passed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Achal Sachdev in a habeas corpus petition that had been filed by Mohd Yaseen.  

It was held explicitly by the Division Bench that the reasons and grounds of arrest had not been communicated in compliance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. So the Court thus declared the arrest unlawful. It was ordered by the Court that the petitioner “shall be released forthwith, if not found in any other case.”

What also has to be borne in mind is that the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad has been told by the Allahabad High Court to forthwith get an FIR registered against the investigating officer under the relevant provisions of Chapter XIV of the BNS, and to place a compliance report before the Court within seven days. It also needs to be taken into account that the UP State’s counsel was asked to ensure immediate compliance. It would also be relevant to note that copies of the order went to the SP, the District Judge, Farrukhabad, and the Magistrate concerned through the Registrar (Compliance), and the case will be taken up as fresh on November 16, 2026.

Frankly speaking, the simple and short point here which is the crux of the matter in this notable judgment is: The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court by ordering an FIR on the IO and fixing a seven-day timeline compliance period has sent an unmistakable message that back-filled arrest records placed before remand and bail courts can carry criminal consequences for the officer also and not only just release for the accused. It has also made it crystal clear that there will definitely be absolute zero tolerance for any possible fabrication of evidence by the police officer. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Achal Sachdev sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.”

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 of this remarkable judgment that, “The petitioner has been arrested on 14.09.2026 as per the record (arrest memo). However, he states that he was taken into custody on 13.09.2026 when he himself went to the police station along with the lawyer to join the investigation into death of the daughter of the complainant.”    

On the one hand, while elaborating on the facts of the case, the Division Bench lays bare in para 3 of this pertinent judgment disclosing that, “Brief facts against the petitioner are that the daughter of the complainant committed suicide on account of harassment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application was dismissed by the learned court concerned. The arrest memo is at page nos.44 and 45 of the petition. The arrest memo by itself is deficient in material particulars relating to the reasons of arrest.”

On the other hand, the Division Bench then observes in para 4 of this robust judgment that, “However, learned counsel for the State submits that the reasons for arrest and the memo of arrest were separately prepared and given to the petitioner on the same day on 14.09.2026 which purportedly bears signature of the petitioner.”

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 5 of this recent judgment that, “The said document placed before this Court by learned counsel for the State, upon instructions received by him from the police, is reproduced herein below.”

Be it also noted, the Division Bench then further notes in para 6 of this meticulous judgment that, “From the scanned copies of the documents shown to us, the first three pages of the documents referred to the arrest memo and the reasons for arrest which have been given separately to the petitioner, upon comparison of these three documents along with the document given to the State by the investigating officer by way of the instructions, the Court finds that the arrest memo given by the State is identical to the arrest memo given to the petitioner at page nos. 44 and 45 of the petition.”

Most strikingly and most alarmingly, the Division Bench then points out in para 7 of this courageous judgment that, “However, the reason for arrest which is at page no.46 of the petition which is the 3rd document, scanned and reproduced hereinabove, is different from the reason of arrest given by the investigating officer along with instructions to the office of the Government Advocate. In the copy of the reason for arrest given to the petitioner and the copy of which has been placed at page no.46 of the petition, the reason for arrest only mentions Section 108 of the BNS. The remaining particulars that a case has been registered and that evidence has emerged indicating that the deceased committed suicide on account of the harassment meted out to her by the petitioner, are conspicuously absent from the copy furnished to the petitioner.”

Most rationally, the Division Bench does not pull back its punches and holds explicitly in para 8 of this persuasive judgment that, “The only logical inference that can be drawn from the aforesaid circumstances is that the reasons for arrest were never supplied to the petitioner that is why the same is specific in the copy of the arrest memo given to the petitioner at page no.46 of the petition. The only inescapable inference is that the later part given to the reasons for arrest has been inserted by the investigating officer and subsequently the papers placed before the remand Magistrate and the papers placed before the learned court for deciding the bail application (bail application was rejected) reflect that an offence under Chapter XIV of the BNS relating to “false evidence and offence against public justice”, appears to have been committed by the investigating officer.”

Most significantly, most commendably and so also most remarkably, the Division Bench then encapsulates in para 9 of this extremely erudite judgment what constitutes the cornerstone of this pragmatic judgment postulating precisely that, “This Court deprecates such action on the part of the police for fabricating evidence only in order to satisfy the reasons for arrest and the memo of arrest which were never given to the petitioner and to deny him the relief in the remand proceedings and bail proceedings. Therefore, this Court holds on the basis of what has been considered hereinabove that the reasons for arrest and the grounds of arrest are not communicated in compliance of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of the judgments. Therefore, the petitioner’s arrest is held to be unlawful and he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.”

Most forthrightly, the Division Bench then propounds in para 10 of this exemplary judgment holding succinctly that, “The Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad will forthwith get the first information report registered against the investigating officer of this case under the relevant provisions of the aforementioned Chapter of the BNS and place the compliance report before this Court within a period of seven days from the date of this order.”

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 11 of this notable judgment that, “Put up this case on 16.11.2026 as fresh.”

It would also be instructive to note that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 12 of this rational judgment that, “Learned counsel for the State is requested to ensure immediate compliance of this order.”

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by aptly directing and holding in para 13 of this holistic judgment that, “Let the copy of this order be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad, learned District Judge, Farrukhabad and learned Magistrate concerned through Registrar (Compliance), forthwith.”

In summation, we see that it was in the fitness of things that the Allahabad High Court took most seriously the unlawful arrest of the petitioner in an abetment to suicide case because the reasons for arrest and the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him as the law required and which is also a fundamental right as envisaged in Article 21 pertaining to right to life and personal liberty and so also Article 22 of Constitution. The reasons for arrest were later inserted by the IO and so an investigation was ordered into this criminal lapse by the Court. Also, the Division Bench in this leading case directed that the petitioner be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Absolutely right! There can be just no denying or disputing it!