By Suman Moktan
The power of the police to investigate an offence is an important part of the criminal justice system. But that power has limits. The police cannot use an innocent person as a tool to put pressure on someone else who is accused of an offence.
The Allahabad High Court has recently reaffirmed this principle in Arvind Kumar Yadav (Corpus) & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., where the Court dealt with the alleged unlawful detention of a man whose brother was an accused in a criminal case.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant held that the police cannot unlawfully detain an innocent family member to compel an accused person to surrender. The Court awarded ₹40,000 as compensation for the unlawful deprivation of liberty and directed that the amount be recovered from the salaries of the police personnel responsible for the illegal detention.
What happened in the case?
The matter arose from an FIR registered at George Town Police Station, Prayagraj, against the petitioner’s brother, Suresh Kumar. The case initially involved several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 109 BNS, relating to attempt to murder, was subsequently added during the investigation.
The petitioner, Arvind Kumar Yadav, claimed that he had no connection with the alleged offence. According to his case, police personnel went to his house in Jaunpur on June 23, 2026, took him to George Town Police Station and kept him there until approximately 7:00 PM on June 26.
The Investigating Officer appearing before the High Court stated that he and other police personnel, on the Station House Officer’s instructions, had taken the petitioner from his house for interrogation in connection with the case involving his brother. The State did not dispute that the petitioner remained at the police station during this period.
How did the Court establish the detention?
The High Court examined the available evidence rather than relying merely on competing versions of the incident. The Court considered the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the petitioner’s mobile phone. The records showed his movement from Jaunpur towards Prayagraj and his location near George Town Police Station.
The Court also considered CCTV footage, which established his presence at the police station from June 23 to June 25. The Court noted that CCTV footage for June 26 had not been produced. The petitioner’s mobile phone was switched off from June 23 until June 27.
Taking the evidence together, the Court concluded that the petitioner had remained in unlawful police custody for at least four days.
The central question: Can police detain a relative to pressure an accused?
This was the most important issue before the Court. The High Court found that the petitioner himself was not involved in the offence. The Court further observed that he appeared to have been kept at the police station to put pressure on his brother and compel the accused to surrender.
The Bench made the position clear:
“The police cannot resort to pressure tactics to compel the actual offender to surrender before it by unlawfully detaining an innocent member of his family who has no connection with the alleged offence.”
The Court treated such conduct as an unlawful deprivation of liberty. It further held that the person subjected to such detention is entitled to compensation for the loss of liberty, even when the period of detention is temporary.
Investigation does not mean unlimited power
This judgment is important because investigation often requires the police to question persons who may have information about an offence. But there is a difference between lawful questioning or investigation and detention used as a pressure mechanism. A person does not become legally responsible for an offence merely because he or she is related to the accused.
For example, if a person is wanted in a criminal case and cannot be located, the police must use the legal mechanisms available to locate, question, arrest or otherwise proceed against that person in accordance with the law. Keeping the person’s brother, father, mother, wife or another relative at a police station merely to force the wanted person to surrender is fundamentally different. The relative’s relationship with the accused cannot, by itself, create a legal basis for detention.
Constitutional protection of personal liberty
The issue also has a direct connection with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects life and personal liberty. Personal liberty cannot be taken away except according to a procedure established by law. Police powers must therefore operate within the boundaries established by the Constitution, statutes and judicial safeguards.
The case is a reminder that police effectiveness and individual liberty are not competing ideas. Law enforcement must be effective, but the methods used to achieve that objective must remain lawful.
Compensation for illegal detention
The High Court did not stop at declaring the detention unlawful. It awarded ₹40,000 compensation to Arvind Kumar Yadav for the wrongful and unlawful detention. More significantly, the Court directed that the compensation should be recovered from the salaries of the police personnel responsible for the illegal detention, in proportions to be determined by the State.
The Court also directed that its displeasure regarding the conduct of the concerned SHO, Yogendra Kumar Singh, and Investigating Officer, Ashvani Savita, be recorded in their respective service records. This part of the order gives the judgment an important administrative dimension. The issue was not treated simply as an error in investigation. The Court attached consequences to the conduct of the personnel responsible.
What does this mean for police officers?
From an investigative perspective, the judgment carries a straightforward lesson. When an accused is absconding or avoiding the investigation, the investigating officer should document the steps taken and use the legal procedures available to secure the accused’s presence. An innocent relative should not become a substitute for the accused.
If a family member is required for questioning because that person has relevant information, the police must act within the legal framework governing such questioning. The mere fact that the person is related to an accused does not justify keeping that person in police custody. Police officers should also maintain proper records concerning persons brought to the police station for questioning or other investigative purposes.
In the present case, the Court’s reliance on CDR and CCTV evidence is particularly significant. Modern evidence can establish where a person was and for how long. Police station CCTV systems and contemporaneous records can therefore become important safeguards for both citizens and police officers.
A message for citizens
The judgment also carries an important message for ordinary citizens. Being the parent, spouse, sibling or other relative of an accused does not make a person an accused. If a person is unlawfully detained, the law provides remedies. The present proceedings themselves arose through a habeas corpus petition, through which the alleged unlawful detention was brought before the High Court. Citizens should therefore understand that family relationship alone does not provide a legal basis for detention.
The larger principle
Criminal investigation is about finding the truth and bringing offenders before the law. It is not about punishing people who happen to be connected to an accused person. An accused person’s family cannot be treated as a bargaining tool. The Allahabad High Court’s decision reinforces a basic principle of policing: the police must pursue the accused through lawful investigative methods, not through the unlawful detention of an innocent relative.
The ₹40,000 compensation awarded in this case is therefore only one part of the judgment. The larger message is about the limits of police power and the importance of personal liberty. For every investigating officer, the lesson is simple: a strong investigation must remain a lawful investigation. For every citizen, the lesson is equally clear: a family relationship with an accused does not make a person liable for the accused’s alleged offence.
Case at a Glance
Case: Arvind Kumar Yadav (Corpus) & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Court: Allahabad High Court
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant
Decision: September 9, 2026
Issue: Unlawful detention of an innocent family member to pressure an accused to surrender
Compensation: ₹40,000
Additional direction: Recovery of compensation from responsible police personnel and recording of the Court’s displeasure in the concerned officers’ service records.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It is based on publicly reported details of the judgment and should not be treated as legal advice. Readers should refer to the original court order and applicable law for the complete legal position.
