The Allahabad High Court has ordered an inquiry into alleged fabrication of an arrest memo and perjury by police officials after finding discrepancies between the original document and the version submitted with the State's counter-affidavit. The Court also allowed a habeas corpus petition and directed the petitioner's release, subject to the conditions recorded in its order.
Background
The case, Junaid and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others, arose from a habeas corpus petition concerning the petitioner's custody in FIR No. 650 of 2026, registered at Quarsi Police Station in Aligarh under Sections 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The petitioner alleged that he had been taken into custody on August 6, 2026, at around 3 am and that the arrest memo did not adequately disclose the grounds for his arrest. His counsel brought the original arrest memo before the Court, pointing out that the recorded reason merely referred to the case in question without explaining the specific grounds.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev examined the arrest memo submitted with the State's counter-affidavit and compared it with the document supplied to the petitioner and the certified copy placed before the remand Magistrate.
The Court found that entries explaining the grounds of arrest had been added to the version filed by the State. These additions referred to allegations that the petitioner had fabricated valuable security and defrauded people. The Court observed that these details were absent from the original documents.
The Bench also noted a discrepancy concerning CCTV cameras at the police outpost. While the State's affidavit denied their existence, photographs submitted by the petitioner showed cameras at the entrance.
The Court recorded its findings in strong terms:
“Thus, it is clear that the fabrication in the said document has been done by the police on a date after the remand proceedings and perhaps after the habeas corpus petition was filed.”
The Bench further observed that the affidavit's deponent was not the investigating officer and had relied on information and records made available to him. It therefore distinguished the deponent's role from the alleged fabrication attributed to the investigating process.
The Court held that the grounds of arrest were perfunctory and inadequate for the petitioner to make an informed bail application. It allowed the petition, observing:
“Thus, the present petition is allowed on the grounds of deficiency in disclosing the grounds of arrest, which is perfunctory and inadequate for the petitioner to file a bail application.”
On the alleged fabrication and perjury before the Court, the Bench directed the Registrar General to proceed under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 215. Following an inquiry, if a prima facie offence was established, the Registrar General was directed to take the necessary steps to file a complaint before the competent court against those found prima facie involved.
The Court ordered the petitioner's immediate release, provided he was not required in another case, without prejudice to lawful re-arrest in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab.
Case Details
- Case Title: Junaid and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
- Case Number: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1389 of 2026
- Judges: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev
- Decision Date: October 14, 2026
