Introduction:

In Sunil Kandu @ Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56, the Allahabad High Court delivered a significant judgment reinforcing constitutional safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. A Division Bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh examined a claim for compensation arising out of the petitioner’s wrongful arrest and prolonged incarceration by the Uttar Pradesh Police in 2017. The petitioner, Sunil Kandu @ Sunil Kumar Gupta, approached the High Court invoking his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, contending that he was arrested without any credible evidence, without reasonable satisfaction of the allegations, and in blatant violation of the procedure established by law. The arrest stemmed from an FIR alleging molestation and an attempt to rape, yet subsequent investigation revealed that the petitioner was not even present at the place of occurrence on the relevant date. After spending 79 days in custody, the petitioner was granted bail, and eventually, in July 2022, the criminal proceedings were dropped when the complainant repeatedly failed to appear before the trial court. Against this factual backdrop, and after noting that a departmental inquiry had already found the arresting police officer guilty of misconduct, the High Court was called upon to decide whether the petitioner’s liberty had been unlawfully curtailed and whether monetary compensation was warranted as a public law remedy for violation of his fundamental and human rights.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

The petitioner argued that his arrest and detention constituted a gross abuse of police power and a direct infringement of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. It was contended that the arresting officer acted in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, without conducting any meaningful investigation or arriving at a prima facie satisfaction regarding the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence. The petitioner emphasised that the FIR described the assailant as an “unknown person” and that there was no credible material connecting him to the alleged incident. Despite this, he was arrested more than two weeks later from Lucknow, without any explanation as to how the police identified him or formed a belief in his culpability. It was further submitted that during investigation, it clearly emerged that the petitioner was not present in Gorakhpur on the date of the alleged occurrence, a fact that completely demolished the prosecution’s case.

The petitioner highlighted glaring inconsistencies between the allegations in the FIR and the medical evidence, noting that while the complainant alleged physical assault including grabbing of the neck and biting of the cheek, the medico-legal report recorded no injuries whatsoever. This, according to the petitioner, demonstrated the absence of “credible information” or “reason to believe,” which were mandatory preconditions for arrest without warrant under Section 41(1)(ba) of the CrPC, as applicable at the relevant time. The petitioner further relied on constitutional jurisprudence, particularly the Supreme Court’s decision in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., to argue that arrest cannot be justified merely because it is lawful to do so, and that the police must be able to justify the necessity of arrest.

Seeking compensation under Section 18(a)(i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the petitioner contended that his illegal detention for 79 days caused irreparable damage to his dignity, reputation, and mental well-being. He also pointed out that a departmental inquiry had already concluded that the concerned police personnel acted wrongly and had been punished, thereby reinforcing the illegality of the arrest. The petitioner thus urged the Court to grant monetary compensation as a public law remedy for the violation of his fundamental and human rights.

Arguments on Behalf of the State:

The State Government opposed the claim for compensation primarily on technical and procedural grounds. It was contended that the petitioner’s complaint before the Human Rights Commission was barred by limitation under Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as it was filed beyond the prescribed period. According to the State, this delay disentitled the petitioner from any relief under the Act. The State also sought to justify the police action by submitting that the arrest was made pursuant to the registration of an FIR involving serious allegations of molestation and attempted rape, and that the police were acting in discharge of their statutory duties.

It was argued that arrest forms part of the investigative process and that at the stage of arrest, the police are not required to conclusively establish guilt. The State attempted to suggest that the subsequent failure of the complainant to pursue the case or the eventual dropping of proceedings could not retrospectively render the arrest illegal. On this basis, the State contended that no compensation was payable and that the petitioner’s remedy, if any, lay elsewhere and not through a writ petition seeking monetary damages.

Court’s Judgment:

After examining the record and rival submissions, the Allahabad High Court found the petitioner’s grievance to be well-founded and held that his arrest and detention were patently illegal and unconstitutional. The Bench noted that there was “nothing on record” to show that any investigation had been conducted prior to the arrest that could have given the police “reason to believe” that the petitioner had committed the alleged offence. Emphasising the requirements of Section 41(1)(ba) CrPC, the Court held that arrest without warrant is permissible only when credible information exists and when the arresting officer forms a reasoned belief regarding the person’s involvement, conditions that were clearly absent in the present case.

The Court took serious note of the discrepancies between the allegations and the medical evidence, observing that the medico-legal report showed no injuries to corroborate the claims of physical assault. It also attached significance to the fact that the investigation revealed the petitioner was not even present in Gorakhpur on the relevant date. Relying on Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., the Bench reiterated that arrest cannot be made in a routine manner and that denial of personal liberty is a serious matter requiring careful justification. The Court observed that arbitrary arrest and detention cause incalculable harm to a person’s reputation and self-esteem and cannot be condoned under the rule of law.

Rejecting the State’s objection on delay, the Court noted that the criminal case against the petitioner was disposed of on 14 July 2022, and that he approached the Human Rights Commission within a year thereafter, which could not be termed as undue delay. The Bench also took note of the departmental inquiry that had found the arresting officer guilty, further reinforcing the conclusion that the petitioner was a helpless victim of arbitrary police action. Holding that the arrest was not in accordance with procedure established by law and amounted to a clear violation of Article 21, the High Court exercised its public law jurisdiction to award Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner for the infringement of his fundamental and human rights.