4,847 Preventive Detentions in Prayagraj, Ghaziabad: Allahabad High Court Calls It 'Shocking State of Affairs'

The Allahabad High Court has flagged what it called a "shocking state of affairs" in Uttar Pradesh's police commissionerates after records showed that over the past two years at least 4,847 people were held in preventive detention in Prayagraj and Ghaziabad, many of them remaining in jail for days and even weeks, contrary to the safeguards envisaged under the law.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi was dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by Prayagraj resident Mansoor Ahmad alias Lallu, who was kept in judicial custody for eight days under Sections 170, 126 and 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (earlier Section 151, 107 and 116 of the CrPC).

Holding that his detention was illegal, the court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay him Rs 2 lakh compensation and recover the amount from the Assistant Commissioner of Police concerned after a disciplinary inquiry.

Records placed before the court showed that 2,522 persons were detained under Sections 170, 126 and 135 BNSS in Ghaziabad between May 2025 and April 2026, with detention periods ranging from one to 17 days. In Prayagraj, 283 persons were detained in 2024, 1,321 in 2025 and another 721 in 2026 till the hearing of the case. Court noted that many of them remained in judicial custody for periods extending from a few days to several weeks.

Why did the Allahabad High Court find Mansoor Ahmad's detention illegal?

The case arose from allegations that police personnel from Khiri police station in Prayagraj picked up Mansoor Ahmad from his house in the early hours of March 19, 2026. His family claimed they were not informed of the reasons for his arrest and later found him in poor condition at the police station.

The State defended the action, saying Mansoor had abused villagers and there was an apprehension of breach of peace. According to the police, he was detained under preventive provisions of the BNSS and produced before the Assistant Commissioner of Police exercising magisterial powers.

However, after examining the records, court found that the arrest memo did not disclose the grounds of arrest. It further noted that the ACP's order sent Mansoor directly to jail on March 19 and fixed March 27 as the next date without recording that he had refused to furnish a personal bond.

The bench held that if the petitioner had not furnished a personal bond on March 19, he ought to have been given an opportunity to do so the next day. Instead, he remained incarcerated for eight days.

Court said the provisions of Sections 170, 126 and 135 BNSS had been "flagrantly violated" and that the petitioner had been kept in illegal detention "dehors the provisions of law".

What did the court say about preventive detention under BNSS?

The bench said the figures placed before it revealed a disturbing pattern in the functioning of the commissionerate system. Referring to the detention data, it observed that powers vested in Commissioners of Police acting as Magistrates were being misused.

Calling it a "shocking state of affairs" in Prayagraj Commissionerate, court noted that individuals were being sent to jail under preventive proceedings and kept there for days or weeks, contrary to the safeguards contemplated under the law.

Applying directions issued earlier in a similar Ghaziabad case, court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 25,000 per day for Mansoor's eight-day illegal detention, amounting to Rs 2 lakh.

It directed the State Government to make the payment within six weeks and recover the amount from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bara, Prayagraj, after completing disciplinary proceedings within three months.

The Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, has been directed to file a compliance report before the High Court by September 14, 2026, failing which he must remain personally present before the court.

Case Title: Mansoor Ahmad @ Lallu and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Order Date: June 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi