Prayagraj/New Delhi, March 1 – The Allahabad High Court has criticized Prayagraj police officials for the arrest and delayed release of a man in an Arms Act case, stating that their conduct constituted a violation of the Supreme Court's directions regarding arrests in offenses punishable with up to seven years imprisonment.
A bench of Justices Siddharth and Jai Krishna Upadhyay directed the police officials to take appropriate action while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Sachin Arya, also known as Sachin Bhartiya, challenging his arrest and detention by the Prayagraj police.
In its order passed on February 12, the bench led by Justice Siddharth observed that the petitioner had been arrested for offenses under Sections 3 and 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, which prescribe punishments ranging from two to five years, and therefore the arrest did not comply with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr.
Directing his immediate release, the Allahabad High Court ordered that the petitioner "should be released immediately without waiting for the certified copy of this order to be provided to Respondents Nos. 4 and 5." Since the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Dhoomanganj was present in court, the bench led by Justice Siddharth made it clear that "the order should be complied with immediately without waiting for the certified copy of this order."
However, in a subsequent order dated February 17, the Allahabad High Court noted that its directions had been complied with after nearly 20 hours. "It is clear that the order of this court was complied with after about 20 hours. Therefore, this court finds that Respondents nos. 4 and 5 have no respect for the law of the land," the bench led by Justice Siddharth observed.
The bench directed the Prayagraj Commissioner of Police to "take appropriate action" against SHO Dhoomanganj and SI Digvijay Singh, in charge of T.P. Nagar, within three days and to communicate the compliance before the next date of hearing.
When the matter came up again on February 23, the Allahabad High Court expressed dissatisfaction over the action taken and directed the Commissioner of Police to file a personal affidavit detailing the disciplinary measures initiated against the officials, as well as steps taken to ensure the circulation and implementation of Supreme Court guidelines across police stations.
In the final hearing on February 25, the bench led by Justice Siddharth noted that the petitioner had already been released from custody and disposed of the habeas corpus petition. While declining to grant compensation within the habeas corpus proceedings, the Allahabad High Court clarified that the petitioner was free to pursue any other remedies available under the law.
"Since this petition is in the nature of Habeas Corpus, the direction for compensation cannot be granted. However, it is open for the petitioner to avail any other remedy available under law," the bench led by Justice Siddharth said.
Dismissing the petition, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, was expected to carry the disciplinary process already initiated "to its logical end".