In a sharp intervention exposing serious lapses in arrest procedures, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to examine the legality of a police action where individuals were allegedly taken into custody without being informed of the grounds of arrest, raising urgent concerns over personal liberty and compliance with binding Supreme Court directions.
The controversy began when the petitioners approached the Court through a habeas corpus plea, alleging that their arrest and subsequent remand by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, were carried out in blatant violation of safeguards laid down by the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh v. State of Maharashtra and reinforced by a recent High Court ruling in Umang Rastogi v. State of U.P.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the arrest memo and grounds of arrest were mechanically prepared, failing to meet constitutional and statutory requirements. Attention was also drawn to a State-wide circular issued by the Director General of Police mandating strict compliance with arrest procedures, which, according to the petitioners, was ignored by the arresting officers.
The Court was unimpressed by the State’s defence. Rejecting the submission that the arresting officer was unaware of the DGP’s circular, the Bench delivered a stinging rebuke, observing that “ignorance of law cannot be a valid excuse for violating the same.” Holding that the arrest was illegal and contrary to both the DGP’s circular and binding judicial precedents, the Court concluded that the remand order dated 20 January 2026 could not stand.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the remand order, directed the immediate release of the petitioners from custody, and allowed the writ petition, while leaving it open to the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Case Title: Anoop Kumar And Anr, Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.
Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 95 of 2026
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Siddharth, Hon'ble Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay,
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Raghav Dev Garg,
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
