Police Arrested Wrong Men on Similar Names: Allahabad High Court Quashes Cases, Seeks Action in 2 Months

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside criminal proceedings against two men after finding that they were arrested due to mistaken identity and failure of the police to verify basic particulars before executing non-bailable warrants.

The bench of Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari emphasized that mere similarity of names does not justify arrest.

Relying on precedents including Joginder Kumar v State of U.P. (1994), Satendra Kumar Antil v CBI (2022), and Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014), court reiterated that arrest is not mandatory merely because an offence is cognizable. The power to arrest must be exercised with caution, and officers must record reasons and satisfy themselves about necessity and complicity, court said. 

Court underscored that no arrest can be made in a routine manner on mere allegations. There must be reasonable satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the complaint and the person’s involvement. Denial of liberty, it said, is a serious matter that cannot be justified by administrative convenience or incomplete verification.

"Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person," court said. 

Invoking Article 21, court observed that deprivation of personal liberty due to mistaken identity is impermissible in law. It referred to decisions such as Rudul Shah v State of Bihar (1983) and Rabindra Nath Ghosal v University of Calcutta (2002) to highlight that constitutional courts have the power to grant compensation where fundamental rights are infringed by arbitrary action.

In the present matter, court quashed proceedings in two separate matters. 

The first case arose from allegations registered at Police Station Gazipur, Lucknow, under Sections 328 (Section 123 of BNS), 376D [Section 70(1) of BNS], and 406 [Section 316 (2) of BNS] of the IPC and Section 5(1) of the Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021. The informant alleged that she was raped and blackmailed by a person named Nihal and that another person named Azeem had also assaulted her. Supplementary charge sheet proceedings were pending before a special judge under the POCSO Act.

The second case dated back to 2004 and involved allegations that Om Prakash had dishonestly used a sale deed belonging to an illiterate woman as security for a bank loan in Sitapur district.

Before the high court, both applicants contended that they were not the real accused. In the 2004 case, the applicant asserted that although his name was Om Prakash, the actual accused was Om Prakash, son of Sohan Lal and Bhagwati Devi. He pointed out that his mother’s name was Ramrati, demonstrating that he had been wrongly identified. In the Lucknow case, the applicant Mohd. Azeem Idrishi similarly claimed false implication.

The state acknowledged that a factual mistake had occurred. It submitted that the non-bailable warrant did not contain complete identifying particulars. Since the father’s name of the deceased accused and the person arrested was the same, and based on local inputs, the police apprehended the wrong individual.

Court found that the record did not disclose any material establishing the identity of the applicants as the persons against whom criminal proceedings had been initiated. It held that mere similarity in name cannot justify arrest, especially when identifying details are incomplete.

Allowing the applications under Section 482 CrPC, court set aside the cognizance order dated November 17, 2006, the order dated July 1, 2025, and all consequential proceedings against the applicants.

It further directed the Police Commissioner, Lucknow, and the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, to take appropriate action against the erring officials and submit a compliance report within two months.

Court clarified that the applicants are at liberty to seek appropriate relief, including compensation, by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Case Title: Mohd. Azeem Idrishi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another connected with Om Prakash Vishwakarma vs. State of U.P.

Order Date: February 09, 2026

Bench: Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari