The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay compensation of Rs 25,000 per day to any person who is illegally detained for more than 24 hours under preventive detention provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi further held on Monday that the compensation amount must subsequently be recovered from the salaries of the responsible Magistrate, police officer, or both, after fixing liability through disciplinary proceedings.
The Court expressed serious concern over what it described as a recurring and disturbing pattern across Uttar Pradesh, where police officials and Executive Magistrates were routinely sending individuals to jail under preventive provisions merely on apprehensions of breach of peace.
Such actions were being undertaken in a highly irresponsible manner despite the existence of a state government policy issued on March 23, 2021, providing guidance on handling public order situations, it observed.
The Court issued the directions while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Advocate Chander Pal Singh, a person with disabilities practising before the High Court, who alleged that he had been illegally detained by the Ghaziabad police in February this year.
According to the petition, Singh was taken into custody by the Ghaziabad police on February 22, 2026, following a neighbour’s complaint alleging obstruction of a passage due to the installation of a gate.
He contended that he was not produced before a Magistrate within the constitutionally mandated period of 24 hours and was instead produced before an Assistant Commissioner of Police the following day. Thereafter, he was sent to jail under preventive provisions corresponding to Section 151 CrPC and Section 170 BNSS.
The Court noted that Singh and his nephew subsequently furnished bonds of Rs 50,000 each under Sections 170, 126 and 135 of the BNSS to maintain peace, yet they were not released. Singh was ultimately released only on February 25 after the High Court intervened in the habeas corpus proceedings, while his nephew secured release a day later.
While examining the legality of the detention, the Court found that Magistrates across the State were incorrectly insisting on bonds of Rs 50,000, along with one or two sureties of an equivalent amount in breach-of-peace proceedings. The Bench clarified that Section 170 BNSS does not contemplate execution of such bonds or insistence on sureties in the manner being routinely adopted.
The Court further observed that detention orders under preventive provisions can be passed only upon failure to execute the required bond and not otherwise. In support of this conclusion, it relied on earlier decisions of coordinate Benches in Amit Jani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Shiv Kumar Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which had similarly interpreted the preventive detention framework.
The Bench also considered the issue of monetary compensation for unlawful deprivation of personal liberty. It referred to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan (2026), which reiterated the principle laid down in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa that courts may award exemplary monetary compensation where the State fails to protect fundamental rights.
The Court took note of a compliance affidavit filed by the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner stating that no individual was presently under preventive detention. However, it found that the records revealed several instances where persons had earlier been arrested and kept in jail for multiple days before being released, allegedly to demonstrate effective policing.
Against this backdrop, the Bench framed a series of binding guidelines governing preventive detention proceedings. It directed that any person detained under preventive provisions of the BNSS or CrPC should ordinarily be required to furnish only a personal bond undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour. The amount of such personal bond should not exceed Rs 20,000, and no surety should ordinarily be demanded. If a higher bond amount is considered necessary, the Magistrate must record detailed reasons in writing.
The Court further directed that where a detainee executes the required bond on the date of detention, immediate release must follow. In cases where the detainee refuses to execute the bond, the refusal must be recorded both in writing and through audio-visual means before any decision is taken to send the individual to jail. The person must thereafter be produced before the Magistrate on a date chosen by the detainee to enable execution of the bond.
Significantly, the Court held that if any person is detained beyond 24 hours without a plausible legal justification, the State government shall be liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs 25,000 per day. The compensation amount is to be recovered from the salary of the concerned Magistrate and/or police officer after departmental proceedings establish responsibility for the unlawful detention. The Bench also directed that officers prima facie responsible for such violations must face disciplinary action for dereliction of duty under the applicable service rules.
Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the Court held that Chander Pal Singh had been illegally detained from February 22 to February 25 and was therefore entitled to compensation of Rs 75,000. The State government has been directed to pay the amount within six weeks and thereafter recover it from the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police and/or Station House Officer found responsible for the unlawful detention.
The post Allahabad High Court orders compensation for illegal detention beyond 24 hours; issues guidelines on preventive custody appeared first on India Legal.