AMP Article

HC orders ₹2 lakh compensation for man’s 8-day illegal detention

Published जून 11, 2026 · Updated जून 11, 2026 · By Emily Smith

HC Directs ₹2 Lakh Compensation for 8-Day Illegal Detention in Peace Case

Legal Action Against Uttar Pradesh Authorities

HC orders 2 lakh compensation for man - The Allahabad High Court has mandated ₹2 lakh in compensation for Mansoor Ahmad, who was unlawfully detained for eight days under a breach of peace case. The order specifies a daily payment of ₹25,000 to be disbursed within six weeks. A division bench, comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, emphasized the need for accountability in the incident.

"This is a shocking state of affairs in the Commissionerate, Prayagraj. The Commissioner of Police has been given the powers of a Magistrate, which are being misused to the hilt," stated the court in its June 8 ruling.

Disciplinary Measures and Compliance Deadlines

The court instructed that the compensation amount be recovered from ACP Bara of Prayagraj following a disciplinary inquiry within three months. Additionally, the police commissioner of Prayagraj was directed to submit a compliance report by September 14, 2026, as part of the judicial process.

Arrest Details and Family Claims

Mansoor Ahmad was apprehended by Khiri police personnel at around 12:50 am on March 19. His wife reported that she was physically displaced when seeking clarification for his detention, with no explanation provided. The same day, his son Shahrukh Khan filed a complaint against the police officers via legal counsel on the Chief Minister's portal.

Family members later claimed to have found Mansoor in severe condition at the Khiri police station, alleging he had been subjected to physical abuse. Despite appeals to the ACP and police commissioner, no action was taken, prompting the filing of a habeas corpus petition on March 23.

Police authorities defended their actions, stating that judicial custody is imposed when a person refuses to execute a personal bond. However, the court found no evidence of such refusal, highlighting the misuse of authority in the case.