Allahabad HC Awards Rs 5 Lakh Compensation After SHO Arrests Man Despite Stay Order, Orders Disciplinary Action

The Allahabad High Court found that an SHO arrested a man on 4 April 2026 despite a coordinate bench's stay order, keeping him in jail for 25 days, and directed the State to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation recoverable from the officer.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, has directed the Uttar Pradesh State Government to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to Anil Soni, who was arrested on 4 April 2026 by the SHO of Police Station Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar, even though a coordinate bench of the same court had stayed his arrest three days earlier. The bench found that the SHO, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, had full constructive knowledge of the stay order and yet kept Soni in custody until 29 April 2026, when the court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to secure his release. The judgment, delivered on 29 May 2026 in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 451 of 2026, also directs initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the SHO and permits the State to recover the compensation amount from him.

The FIR, the Stay, and the Arrest

Anil Soni was named in an FIR dated 6 January 2024 lodged by one Khusboo, daughter of Ram Dheeraj Chamar, at Police Station Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 69, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Soni challenged the FIR by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1544 of 2026 before the High Court.

On 1 April 2026, a coordinate bench of the High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides including the learned AGA for the State and Sri Ashwani Kumar Gupta for the informant, stayed Soni's arrest as an interim measure. The State's counsel and the informant's counsel were both present when the order was passed. It was not an ex-parte order.

The stay order was uploaded to the court's website only on 6 April 2026. Before that, on 4 April 2026, SHO Sanjay Kumar Mishra arrested Soni. On the same day, Soni's brother Hari Prasad prepared a notary affidavit addressed to the SHO, informing him that the High Court had passed an interim order in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1544 of 2026. The affidavit was handed to the SHO.

Efforts to Communicate the Order — All Ignored

Soni's counsel, Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, telephoned the SHO on his CUG numbers 9454404234 and 9454401349 on 4 April 2026. The SHO said he was attending a tehsil diwas and would act after receiving directions from higher authorities. A copy of the affidavit was also sent to the SHO's mobile phone. Relatives of Soni visited the SHO and the Circle Officer to seek compliance with the stay order but were, according to the petition, met with misbehaviour.

A sub-inspector identifying himself as Vipul Kumar Rai called Soni's other counsel, Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, from mobile number 9336427812 on 4 April 2026 to inquire about the status of the criminal writ petition. Counsel informed him that the interim order would be uploaded within one or two days and a copy would then be supplied.

A copy of the court order was sent by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, on 9 April 2026 and was received at his office on 13 April 2026, as confirmed by postal department tracking records. Soni was still not released.

The habeas corpus petition was filed on 13 April 2026. Even after the petition was admitted and counter-affidavits were called for, the respondents filed affidavits justifying the arrest on the ground that no copy of the stay order had been formally produced before them. Soni remained in District Jail, Siddharth Nagar.

The Court's Reasoning on Constructive Knowledge and Counsel's Duty

The bench rejected the State's justification squarely. It held that the stay order of 1 April 2026 was passed in the presence of the learned AGA and the informant's counsel. The respondents could not claim ignorance of an order passed in open court with their own representatives present. The bench observed: “it is crystal clear that the respondents and also learned counsel for informant were aware of the order.”

The bench went further and addressed the duty of counsel appearing for the State. It held that all counsel, whether for the petitioner or the respondents, are officers of the court and are required to protect the majesty of the court and the law. It was the bound duty of the State's counsel to inform the SHO and other police officials that Soni's arrest had been stayed, but that duty was not discharged.

The bench also recorded a broader concern: that State counsel either fail to communicate court orders to police authorities, or police authorities are disrespectful of court orders and act in a mala fide manner. The bench described this as “an unfortunate trend” that was gaining momentum.

On the specific facts, the bench found that the SHO made no effort to comply with the stay order even after the habeas corpus petition was filed, counter-affidavits were called for multiple times, and a registered copy of the order reached the Superintendent of Police on 13 April 2026. Soni was released only on 29 April 2026, after the court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to secure his release forthwith and warned the Jail Superintendent of personal appearance in case of non-compliance.

Compensation and Recovery from the SHO

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgments in Rudhal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141, Nila Behara v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746, and a recent judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 137 of 2026 (Manoj Kumar, through his son Mudit v. State of U.P.), the bench held that monetary compensation was warranted for the illegal detention.

The court directed the State Government to pay Rs 5 lakh to Anil Soni within one month. The State was expressly permitted to recover the entire amount from SHO Sanjay Kumar Mishra. The bench also directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the SHO for dereliction of duty in violating a court order and for commission of an act of indiscipline.

Compliance Mechanism

The Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, was directed to file a compliance affidavit on or before 13 July 2026 confirming compliance with the directions on compensation and disciplinary proceedings. If the compliance affidavit is not filed, the Superintendent of Police is required to appear personally before the court at 10:00 a.m. on 13 July 2026. The matter is listed as a fresh case on that date.

Order

The Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, deciding Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 451 of 2026 on 29 May 2026, directed: (i) the State Government to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to Anil Soni within one month, with liberty to recover the amount from SHO Sanjay Kumar Mishra; (ii) initiation of disciplinary proceedings against SHO Sanjay Kumar Mishra of Police Station Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar, for violating the court's stay order and dereliction of official duty; and (iii) the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, to file a compliance affidavit by 13 July 2026, failing which to appear personally before the court on that date.