Hc Directs Up To Pay Rs 5 Lakh To Man Arrested Despite Stay

The Allahabad high court on Friday directed the state government to pay Rs. 5 lakh as compensation to a man who was arrested and kept in illegal detention by UP Police despite the HC s interim order staying his arrest. The Allahabad high court on Friday directed the state government to pay Rs. 5 lakh as compensation to a man who was arrested and kept in ‘illegal detention’ by UP Police despite the HC’s interim order staying his arrest. The court further directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the concerned SHO for “dereliction in the due discharge of official duty, violation of the order passed by this Court and commission of an act of indiscipline”. The bench comprising justices Siddharth and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a habeas corpus petition moved by Anil Soni. According to the petitioner, an FIR under Section 69 (sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means) and other sections of the BNS, along with provisions of the SC/ST Act was lodged against him at Itwa police station of Siddharth Nagar by a woman with whom he allegedly had a love affair for the last two years. Earlier, he had moved the high court challenging the FIR. On April 1, another division bench passed an interim order specifically staying his arrest in the said FIR. Although this order was uploaded to HC’s website on April 6, he was arrested on April 4 by the concerned SHO. In the present petition, the petitioner submitted that his brother had prepared a notarised affidavit on the day of the arrest to inform the SHO of the high court’s interim order. Furthermore, even his counsel contacted the SHO via his CUG mobile numbers, but the officer concerned arrested the petitioner. Before the high court, the AGA justified the arrest of the petitioner, contending that the SHO was bound to make the arrest on account of the non-production of the interim order of stay of his arrest. The bench, however, rejected the state’s justification, noting that the interim order was passed in the presence of the learned state government counsel and the learned counsel for the informant. Hence, the bench noted that all the respondents were fully aware of the order. In fact, the bench took into account that even after filing the present plea, on which replies were sought from the respondents, the petitioner was not released from jail. Taking strong exception to the facts of this case, the bench pointed out an ‘unfortunate trend’ is gaining momentum. The bench observed, “We have noted that this unfortunate trend is given the momentum. Learned counsel for the State do not either intimate the orders passed by this Court to the police authorities as a result of which the authorities do not comply with the order passed by this Court or the police authorities are disrespectful towards the Court orders and they act in mala fide manner.”. The court while fixing July 13 as the next date of hearing directed the concerned SP