Illegal Detention Under BNSS? Allahabad High Court Says Officials Must Pay

Holding that executive magistrates and police officers cannot escape responsibility for illegal detention under preventive provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Allahabad High Court has directed that compensation paid by the State to persons unlawfully detained beyond 24 hours be recovered from the salaries of the officials found responsible after disciplinary proceedings.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi issued the direction while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by advocate Chander Pal Singh and his wife, who alleged that Singh had been illegally detained by Ghaziabad police in February this year.

Court observed that despite an existing State government policy on compensation for illegal detention, magistrates and police officers were continuing to send people to jail in proceedings meant only to prevent breach of peace.

“Despite the said policy decision, the police officials of the State and the Magistrates are acting in a highly irresponsible manner by sending persons brought before them, only to prevent breach of peace, to jail for days together,” the bench said.

What did the Allahabad High Court say on magistrates' and police officers' liability?

Laying down a framework of personal accountability, court directed that where a person is detained beyond 24 hours without any plausible reason, compensation at the rate of Rs 25,000 per day shall be paid by the State government.

The bench further directed that the amount paid to the victim shall thereafter be recovered from the salary of the concerned magistrate, police officer, or both, if they are found responsible after disciplinary proceedings.

“The said amount shall be recovered by deduction from the salary of the concerned Magistrate and/or police officer, or both, as the case may be, if they are found responsible for the default, after conducting disciplinary proceedings against them and fixing their liability,” the court said.

It also directed that any magistrate or police official found prima facie responsible for such illegal detention shall face disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty under the applicable service rules.

Why was the petitioner detained?

According to the petition, Chander Pal Singh, a practising advocate, was taken into custody by police personnel of Teelamodh police station in Ghaziabad on February 22, 2026. Singh claimed he was detained for over 24 hours and later sent to jail despite furnishing the bonds sought from him.

The State, on the other hand, contended that an NCR had been registered after a complaint alleging that Singh had obstructed a public passage by installing a gate. Police said he was challaned under Sections 170, 126 and 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (earlier Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the CrPC) and produced before the competent authority.

During the proceedings, the high court sought details from the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, regarding persons detained under similar preventive provisions. An inquiry report was subsequently placed before the court.

After examining the material, the bench recorded that it found no justification for keeping Singh in jail despite execution of the bond.

“From the aforesaid inquiry report, we do not find any justification for keeping the petitioner in jail despite the execution of the bail bond,” court observed.

What directions has the court issued in preventive detention cases?

Expressing concern over what it described as a routine practice of demanding excessive bonds and sureties, court noted that magistrates were frequently insisting on bonds of Rs 50,000 along with one or two sureties of the same amount in cases involving apprehended breach of peace.

The bench held that persons detained under preventive provisions of the BNSS or CrPC should ordinarily be required to furnish only a personal bond, without depositing money, and that the amount should not exceed Rs 20,000. It further directed that no surety should ordinarily be demanded.

Court said that if the bond is executed on the same day, the detainee must be released immediately. In cases where a person refuses to execute the bond, the refusal must be recorded in writing and through audio-visual means before he is sent to jail.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, court held that Singh had been illegally detained from February 22 to February 25, 2026 and awarded him compensation of Rs 75,000, directing the State government to make the payment within six weeks. The amount, the bench said, would later be recoverable from the officials found responsible after an inquiry.

Case Title: Chander Pal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Order Date: June 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi