Allahabad High Court Orders UP Government to Compensate Man for Unlawful Detention

Allahabad High Court directs UP Govt to pay ₹25,000 to man unlawfully detained for 3 days. SDM's actions found illegal; compensation ordered.

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹25,000 to a man for his wrongful detention by the Jaunpur Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for nearly three days. This order came in response to a criminal writ petition filed by Ramesh Chand Gupta.

Gupta was detained in January 2022 by the Jaunpur police under Sections 151, 107, and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court found that the SDM's actions during Gupta's appearance before the magistrate on January 10 were unlawful.

The High Court ruled that Gupta should be compensated for his illegal detention between January 10 and January 13, 2022. It stated, "The petitioner is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for illegal detention from 10.01.2022 to 13.01.2022 by the respondent no.3 (SDM) and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-."

Previously, Gupta had faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the State police in 2021. However, the High Court had issued a favorable order for him, stating that he couldn't be arrested for offenses punishable with a jail term of seven years or less.

Despite this, Gupta was arrested on January 9, 2022, after the authorities became aware of the High Court's order. He was charged under the CrPC to prevent a breach of peace. Gupta was detained overnight and brought before the SDM on January 10, 2022. Despite submitting a bail application on January 11, 2022, the SDM did not hear it until January 13, 2022. Gupta was eventually released on January 13, 2022.

In response to Gupta's plea for compensation, the High Court found his detention from January 11 to January 12, 2022, unjustified. It held that the SDM had violated Sections 107 and 111 of the CrPC.

According to the Court, when a Magistrate acts under Sections 107, 108, 109, or 110 of the CrPC, they must issue a written order specifying the information received, the bond to be executed, its duration, and the number and nature of sureties required. Since Gupta was implicated under Section 107, he should have been served a show cause notice to explain why he should not be required to execute a bond to maintain peace.

However, the SDM failed to issue such a notice and sent Gupta to jail solely because no bail application was filed. The Court noted that none of the essential elements required by Sections 107-111 were part of the SDM's January 13 order.

The Court concluded that the SDM had acted against Gupta contrary to the law's express provisions and ordered the State to compensate him for his wrongful detention.

Advocate Ved Prakash Pandey represented Gupta in this case.