Allahabad High Court Regrets Unnecessary Remarks Against Bareilly SSP, Imposes ₹50,000 Fine on Petitioner

The Allahabad High Court has expressed regret over making unnecessary adverse remarks against a senior police officer from Bareilly after discovering that the petitioner had concealed crucial facts while filing two habeas corpus petitions.
 

A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdeva dismissed both petitions, imposing a total penalty of ₹50,000 on petitioner Omendra Yadav for withholding information and misleading the court. The fine amounts to ₹25,000 for each petition.
 

The court directed Yadav to pay the amount directly to Bareilly Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Anurag Arya within one month. Failure to comply with the order will result in recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue.
 

The petitioner had initially approached the court through a habeas corpus petition, alleging that Bareilly Police had illegally detained him between May 8 and May 13, 2026. When the court sought CCTV footage from the police station for the relevant period, the state counsel informed it that the digital video recorder (DVR) had been destroyed due to a short circuit caused by a storm and rainfall.
 

Taking a serious view of the explanation, the High Court, on May 26, directed SSP Anurag Arya to submit a personal affidavit explaining the alleged shortcomings in compliance with the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh.
 

On October 27, the bench examined the SSP's affidavit and questioned how CCTV recordings from dates preceding the storms on May 13 and May 15 could have been erased. Finding the affidavit prima facie misleading, the court directed the senior police officer to appear before it.
 

However, during the hearing on October 30, the bench discovered that Yadav had filed another habeas corpus petition on May 26 without disclosing the existence of his earlier pending case. This second petition was filed after the state government had already submitted its response to the first petition.
 

The second petition was presented as a fresh case, without any reference to the earlier proceedings. It also attempted to rectify deficiencies concerning the exact date, location and duration of the alleged illegal detention.
 

Taking note of the petitioner's conduct, the bench observed that he had not approached the court with clean hands and had consequently forfeited his entitlement to relief.
 

The court also observed that the office of the Additional Government Advocate should have brought the filing of the second petition to its attention at the initial stage.
 

In its October 30 order, the bench expressed regret over the manner in which the proceedings had unfolded, stating that the court would not otherwise have had to subject the Bareilly SSP to its displeasure.
 

The court sincerely regretted making harsh and unwarranted oral observations against the senior police officer, acknowledging that the adverse remarks could have been avoided had the concealment of the second petition been brought to its notice earlier.