False Illegal Detention Allegations Against Police Attract ₹50,000 Cost From MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention of a woman by police and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, holding that the plea was founded on false allegations and appeared to be an attempt to prevent police from searching for the woman's husband, who is absconding in a murder case.

A division bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Pushpendra Yadav passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Shailendra Singh, who claimed that his sister had been illegally detained by personnel of Police Station Maharajpura in Gwalior along with three members of her family.

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of a habeas corpus plea. Given that the allegations were directed against the police, the Court had earlier directed the State to either produce the woman or place the case diary before it. On the next date of hearing, the State informed the Court that the woman was at her residence and had declined to accompany the police to court.

Subsequently, the woman appeared before the Bench along with her two-year-old son. She stated that her husband was wanted in a murder case and was absconding. According to her, frequent visits by police to search for her husband had compelled her to shift from her native village to her sister’s residence in Dabra.

Before the Court, the woman alleged that police personnel had detained her on May 10, 2026, at an undisclosed location and later released her the same evening. She further claimed that she was again taken into custody on May 11 along with family members, including her minor child, and was released only on May 12. She also alleged that police personnel demanded ₹1 lakh from her family for her release and had misbehaved with her during the period of detention.

However, the Bench found several inconsistencies in the narrative presented by the woman and the petitioner. The Court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the woman failed to disclose the location where she was allegedly detained on all three days. Although she claimed that her family members had visited the place of detention, she still described it only as an “unknown place”.

The Court also found it significant that the petitioner had admittedly been informed about the woman’s return home on May 12, yet no application was moved before the Court to bring this development on record. According to the Bench, even though the petitioner claimed to have informed his counsel on multiple occasions about the woman’s release, no amendment application was filed incorporating either the alleged demand for money or the fact that she had returned home.

Another factor that weighed with the Court was the absence of any allegation regarding the alleged ₹1 lakh demand in the original writ petition. The Bench observed that if such a serious demand had indeed been made from the woman’s family, the petitioner would reasonably have been aware of it and mentioned it in the pleadings.

The Court further questioned why no effort was made to obtain CCTV footage for May 11 and May 12 when the petition itself relied on CCTV images relating to the alleged incident of May 10. According to the Bench, the failure to secure such material cast further doubt on the allegations.

Holding that the claims lacked credibility, the Court concluded that the woman “was never taken by police” on the dates alleged and that the story of illegal detention had been fabricated. The Bench observed that “the entire story has been developed by the corpus with the help of her brother Shailendra Singh in order to pressurize the police to stop looking for her husband who is wanted in a case of murder.”

The Court strongly criticised the misuse of judicial remedies, observing that “this petition appears to be a misuse of lawful authority of this Court and it has to be checked with iron hands, otherwise the police will not be in a position to discharge its duties.”

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000, to be deposited within one month. The Court further directed that in case of default, proceedings for recovery of the amount and contempt action may be initiated against the petitioner.

Case Title: Shailendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: May 14, 2026

Bench: Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Pushpendra Yadav