What discrepancy did the Allahabad High Court find in the arrest memo submitted by police?
The Allahabad High Court observed that the arrest memo filed before the remand magistrate on August 6, 2026, did not contain adequate grounds of arrest, while the counter-affidavit submitted by the police in response to the habeas corpus petition included fabricated entries in Item Nos. 12 and 13 of the second page, which were absent in the original document placed before the trial court.
The bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev noted that the original arrest memo reflected perfunctory grounds and that the version produced before the High Court had been altered after the remand proceedings and possibly after the habeas corpus petition was filed, indicating an attempt to cure deficiencies in the initial arrest record.
The Court emphasized that the fabrication of documents in judicial proceedings constitutes a serious offence and directed the Registrar General to initiate an inquiry under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 215 of BNSS, which deals with offences committed in or in relation to judicial proceedings.
The Registrar General was instructed to examine the records and, if prima facie satisfied that an offence of document forgery or perjury had been committed, to file a complaint before a court of competent jurisdiction against the investigating officer or any other person found responsible for the fabrication.
In concluding the matter, the Court held that since the arrest memo provided to the accused did not disclose sufficient grounds for arrest, his continued detention was unlawful, and ordered his immediate release from custody.
The petitioner, Junaid, had been arrested by the Aligarh police on August 6, 2026, on charges of forgery. His counsel, Senior Advocate Mohit Singh and Advocate Subir Lal, produced the certified copy of the arrest memo from the remand proceedings and highlighted the discrepancies during the hearing of the habeas corpus petition.
The Court rejected the police's justification for the altered memo and treated the post-facto addition of grounds as an abuse of process and a potential criminal act requiring investigation.
The order underscores the Court’s vigilance against misuse of police power and the importance of procedural safeguards in arrest, particularly the requirement under Supreme Court guidelines that arrest memos must accurately reflect the grounds for detention at the time of arrest.
No findings of guilt were recorded against any individual, as the matter was referred for inquiry, and the Court confined its remarks to the apparent discrepancies in the documents and the need for a formal investigation.
|}]}>Junaid and another v. State of UP and 4 Others, the Allahabad High Court has directed its Registrar General to inquire into the alleged fabrication of an arrest memo by the Uttar Pradesh Police. The Court found that the arrest memo submitted before the remand magistrate on August 6, 2026, lacked adequate grounds of arrest, while the version filed later in response to the habeas corpus petition contained additional entries in Item Nos. 12 and 13 of the second page that were not present in the original document. This discrepancy led the Court to conclude that the police had fabricated the arrest memo after the remand proceedings and possibly after the habeas corpus petition was filed.
The Bench, comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev, observed that the original arrest memo placed before the trial court reflected perfunctory grounds, and the subsequent document produced before the High Court appeared to be an attempt to rectify deficiencies post-facto. The Court stated: “It is necessary to mention here that in the original arrest memo, this was never entered into by the I.O. and in order to perfect the arrest memo, perhaps after the habeas corpus petition was filed before this Court, by fabricating entries in Item Nos.12 and 13 of the second page of the arrest memo, which clearly reflect that fabricated document was placed before this Court along with the counter affidavit.”
Taking a serious view of the alleged forgery and perjury in judicial proceedings, the Court invoked Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and directed the Registrar General to conduct an inquiry. The Registrar General was instructed to examine the records and, if prima facie satisfied that an offence of document fabrication or perjury had been committed, to file a complaint before a court of competent jurisdiction against the investigating officer or any other person found responsible.
The Court further held that since the arrest memo provided to the accused did not disclose sufficient grounds for arrest, his detention was in violation of constitutional and procedural safeguards, and ordered his immediate release. The petitioner, Junaid, had been arrested by the Aligarh police on August 6, 2026, and was represented by Senior Advocate Mohit Singh and Advocate Subir Lal.
The Court did not record any findings of guilt, limiting its remarks to the apparent discrepancies in the documents and the necessity of a formal investigation into the conduct of the police officers involved in the preparation of the arrest memo.