Police accused of fabricating arrest memo after habeas plea; Allahabad HC orders inquiry and releases petitioner for inadequate arrest grounds

The petitioner was allegedly taken into custody on 6 August 2026 in connection with an FIR under Sections 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and held at Police Chowki Jamalpur.

The arrest memo supplied to him recorded the grounds only as “मुकदमु उपरो क्तमु”.

The State later filed a different version of the memo with additional entries in items 12 and 13. A certified copy of the memo placed before the remand Magistrate matched the copy supplied to the petitioner, supporting the petitioner’s contention that the later version had been altered.

The Court also noted that photographs contradicted the State’s denial that CCTV cameras were installed at the police chowki.

1. Whether the grounds of arrest recorded in the memo were sufficiently disclosed to the petitioner.

2. Whether the later version of the arrest memo disclosed a prima facie fabrication or perjury requiring further proceedings.

The Court considered the petitioner’s arrest under Sections 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and held that the grounds of arrest must be disclosed with sufficient detail to enable the arrested person to seek bail; perfunctory and inadequate grounds do not meet that requirement.

For alleged offences relating to fabrication of documents and perjury in a judicial proceeding, the Court invoked Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning cases mentioned in Section 215.

It also directed that any re-arrest be subject to the law laid down in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 1022.

The arrest memo given to the petitioner stated only that the arrest related to the above-mentioned case, without meaningful grounds that would allow him to prepare a bail application; the Court therefore found the disclosure perfunctory and inadequate.

The later memo filed with the State’s counter-affidavit contained entries absent from both the petitioner’s copy and the certified copy placed before the remand Magistrate. The Court treated this discrepancy, together with the evidence concerning CCTV cameras, as indicating possible fabrication and perjury by the police, while noting that the counter-affidavit deponent was not the Investigating Officer and may have relied on an already altered record.

The order was without prejudice to re-arrest in accordance with law and subject to Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol.

The Court further directed the Registrar General to conduct an inquiry under Section 379 of the BNSS and, if satisfied that a prima facie offence relating to fabrication of documents or perjury had been committed, to take appropriate steps to file a case before the competent court against those prima facie involved.