Allahabad HC Awards Rs 75,000 Compensation for Three-Day Illegal Detention of Advocate, Sets New BNSS Bond Limits
A Division Bench found that a practising advocate was jailed without lawful cause under BNSS preventive provisions and directed the State to pay Rs 75,000, recoverable from the errant officers after disciplinary inquiry.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a judgment delivered on 8 June 2026, held that the preventive detention of Chander Pal Singh — a practising advocate of the court and a person with disability — by the police of Police Station Teelamodh, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, was wholly illegal. The bench, comprising Justice Siddharth (who authored the judgment) and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, found that Singh was forcibly taken away on 22 February 2026, held for more than 24 hours without production before a Magistrate, and then sent to jail despite having executed bail bonds. He was released only on 25 February 2026 after this court's oral direction in the habeas corpus petition. The bench awarded compensation of Rs 75,000 at Rs 25,000 per day of illegal detention, directed recovery from the responsible officers, and issued prospective directions capping preventive bonds under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) at Rs 20,000 with no surety requirement.
What Happened at Police Station Teelamodh
Chander Pal Singh had travelled to his native village, Jawli, on 13 February 2026 to attend a family wedding scheduled for 20 February 2026. His brother-in-law died on 17 February 2026. He reserved a train ticket to return to Prayagraj on 22 February 2026. At 11:00 a.m. on that day, the Chowki In-charge of Police Station Teelamodh, one Rajendra Singh, forcibly took him away.
He was not produced before any Magistrate within 24 hours as required by law. He was instead produced before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shalimar Garden, District Ghaziabad, and sent to jail under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without being permitted to execute a bond for keeping peace. He was lodged in a cell at the police station for the whole day along with his nephew.
On 23 February 2026, both Singh and his nephew furnished bonds of Rs 50,000 under Sections 170, 126 and 135 of the BNSS. Despite execution of those bail bonds, they were sent to jail. Singh was released on 25 February 2026 at 8:30 a.m. after this court's oral direction; his nephew was released the following morning on 26 February 2026.
After his release, Singh made complaints to the Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, and the District Magistrate. He was then issued a fresh notice dated 25 March 2026 under Sections 126 and 135 of the BNSS by the Executive Magistrate, Sahibabad, in connection with an incident of 3 March 2026. The petitioner's counsel submitted this notice was issued to pressure him into withdrawing the habeas corpus petition. Singh belongs to the SC/ST community and alleged physical and mental harassment by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shalimar Garden, and the SHO, Police Station Teelamodh.
The State's Counter and the Court's Response
The SHO, Police Station Teelamodh, filed a counter affidavit stating that an NCR (NCR No. 12 of 2026) had been registered against Singh on a complaint by one Ravi, who alleged that Singh had obstructed a passage by installing a gate. The NCR was registered under Sections 115(2) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. On that basis, Singh was challaned on 23 February 2026 under Sections 170, 126 and 135 of the BNSS. The SHO stated that an arrest memo was prepared and that Singh had not moved any bail application, which is why he was sent to jail. The SHO also stated that Singh's disability had not been brought to his notice.
The Additional Advocate General, Sri Anoop Trivedi, placed before the court instructions received from the Director General of Police, U.P., which referred to Section 484 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 440 CrPC) dealing with the amount of bonds and their reduction. The bench found these instructions to be a reference to the wrong statutory provision. Section 484 BNSS, the bench noted, relates to bonds furnished after a court order of release from jail on furnishing bond and sureties by an undertrial or convicted accused directed to be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal. The relevant provisions — Sections 126 and 135 BNSS (Chapter IX) and Section 170 BNSS (Chapter XII) — are entirely different, and the DGP's instructions were of no assistance in deciding the petition.
This court had earlier passed an order on 27 April 2026 directing the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, to submit details of illegally detained persons. The compliance affidavit stated that no person was then under detention, but the report itself showed that persons had earlier been arrested and detained in jail for several days and were released only after the court's order. The Commissioner also ordered an inquiry through the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) as to why Singh was detained in the police station for more than 24 hours. The bench, on examining the inquiry report, found no justification for keeping Singh in jail despite execution of the bail bond.
Legal Framework: What BNSS Sections 126, 135 and 170 Actually Permit
The bench set out the relevant provisions at length. Section 126 BNSS empowers an Executive Magistrate, on receiving information that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity, to require that person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding one year. Section 135 BNSS governs the inquiry into the truth of such information and permits the Magistrate, where immediate measures are necessary, to direct execution of a bond and detain the person in custody until the bond is executed — but only in default of execution, not otherwise.
Section 170 BNSS permits a police officer to arrest, without warrant, a person designing to commit a cognizable offence if the commission cannot otherwise be prevented. Crucially, sub-section (2) of Section 170 BNSS provides that no person so arrested shall be detained for more than 24 hours unless further detention is required or authorised under the Sanhita or any other law. The bench noted that Section 170 BNSS does not provide for execution of any bond or furnishing of any surety at all.
The bench relied on two earlier co-ordinate bench decisions. In Amit Jani v. State of U.P., Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1045 of 2019, decided on 6 March 2020, the court had held that the sine qua non for detention under Chapter VIII of the CrPC is failure to execute a bond, and that detention continuing after a bond is tendered is in brazen defiance of the statutory mandate and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. In that case, the court directed recovery of Rs 25,000 from the salary of the responsible City Magistrate as compensation. In Shiv Kumar Verma and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16386 of 2020, decided on 11 June 2021, the court considered the State Government's policy decision dated 23 March 2021, which fixed compensation of Rs 25,000 for illegal detention of any citizen and mandated disciplinary proceedings against the responsible officer.
The bench also drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 599, which reaffirmed that compensation in the nature of exemplary damages can be granted under Article 226 for established infringement of the right guaranteed under Article 21. The court quoted from Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746, where it was observed that “the relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law.”
Why the Existing Policy Was Found Insufficient
The bench found that despite the State Government's policy decision of 23 March 2021, police officials and Magistrates were acting in a highly irresponsible manner by sending persons brought before them — only to prevent breach of peace — to jail for days together. The bench also found that bonds of Rs 50,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount were being illegally insisted upon by Magistrates whenever such detention or arrest was made on allegations of breach of peace, even though Section 170 BNSS does not provide for any bond or surety at all.
The compensation figure of Rs 25,000 fixed in 2021 was found to deserve enhancement by the State Government through a new policy after the coming into force of the BNSS. Pending such a new policy, the bench issued prospective directions.
Prospective Directions on Preventive Detention Under BNSS
The bench issued the following directions applicable to all future cases of preventive detention under the BNSS or CrPC in Uttar Pradesh:
After preventive detention of any person, he shall be required to furnish only a personal bond — a signature bond without deposit of any money — binding him to keep peace and maintain good behaviour. The amount of such bond shall not exceed Rs 20,000 and no surety shall be required. If the bond amount is increased beyond Rs 20,000, the Magistrate must give reasons in writing. If the bond is executed on the date of detention, the person shall be set free immediately.
If the person refuses to execute the personal bond when produced before the Magistrate or Commissioner of Police on the same day, the refusal shall be recorded in writing and by audio-visual mode before he is sent to jail. He shall then be produced before the Magistrate on the date he himself states at the time of refusal, to enable him to furnish the bond on the day of his choosing.
Where a person is detained for more than 24 hours in violation of this order without any plausible reason, Rs 25,000 per day shall be payable to the detained person as compensation by the State Government. That amount shall be recovered by deduction from the salary of the concerned Magistrate and/or police officer, or both, after conducting disciplinary proceedings and fixing their liability.
The Magistrate and/or police official prima facie found responsible for the lapse shall also be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty under their relevant service rules.
Order
On the facts of this case, the bench held that Singh was illegally detained in jail from 22 February 2026 to 25 February 2026 — three days — and was released only after this court's oral direction. He was held entitled to compensation of Rs 75,000 at the rate of Rs 25,000 per day. The State Government was directed to pay this amount to Singh within six weeks. Thereafter, the State Government shall recover the amount from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad, and/or from the SHO, Police Station Teelamodh, Ghaziabad, whosoever is found at fault or both proportionally, after conducting a disciplinary inquiry against both of them within three months.
The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, was directed to file a compliance report before this court on or before 14 September 2026. In case of failure, the Commissioner shall remain present before the court on the next date. The matter is listed on 14 September 2026.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, within a week, for necessary compliance by issuing a circular to all police heads in Police Commissionerates and Districts. The DGP shall also file an affidavit of compliance by the next date fixed.