Prayagraj, Nov 3 The Allahabad High Court has expressed regret for subjecting a senior police officer to “unwarranted” judicial angst and has dismissed two habeas corpus petitions filed by a litigant who concealed prior proceedings to cure defects in his initial filing.
A bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev penalised the petitioner, Omendra Yadav, with Rs 50,000 in costs (Rs 25,000 per petition) for suppression of truth and suggestion of falsehood.
Imposing costs, the court ordered that the amount be paid directly to Bareilly Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Anurag Arya within one month, failing which it will be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
The petitioner in a habeas corpus writ petition had alleged illegal detention by Bareilly police between May 8 and May 13 prior to his formal arrest.
When the CCTV footage of the police station of the period was sought, the state government counsel pleaded that a severe storm and rain had caused a short circuit, destroying the Digital Video Recorder (DVR).
Taking a strict view on May 26, the high court directed SSP Arya to submit a personal affidavit explaining the lapse in accordance with the Supreme Court’s landmark guidelines in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.
On October 27, the bench scrutinised the SSP’s affidavit and questioned how a storm occurring between May 13 and May 15 could erase recordings from earlier dates. Observing prima facie that the affidavit appeared misleading, the bench summoned the officer to appear in person.
However, on October 30 hearing, the bench discovered that Yadav had filed a second, undisclosed habeas corpus petition on May 26 shortly after the state responded to his first petition.
The second filing omitted any mention of the ongoing case, presenting itself as a fresh petition while attempting to fix pleading gaps regarding the exact date, place and timeline of the alleged illegal detention.
Calling out the tactical deception, the bench noted that the petitioner had disentitled himself from relief by failing to approach the court with clean hands.
Crucially, the court pointed out that the additional government advocate (AGA) office should have flagged this duplicate filing at the very beginning.
“This court would not have had to face the embarrassment of making the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, the target of its angst,” the bench noted in its order dated October 30, adding that it “sincerely regrets having subjected (him) to such verbal harshness which was unwarranted.
(PTI News)
