Petitioner’s arrest unlawful, register FIR against IO, HC to SP

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Farrukhabad superintendent of police to register an FIR against an investigating officer, after finding that he appeared to have inserted additional particulars in the 'reasons for arrest' column in a case at a later point in time. A bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev was of the view that the investigating officer appeared to have committed an offence under Chapter XIV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with false evidence and offences against public justice.
Hearing a habeas corpus petition, the court also declared the arrest of the accused-petitioner unlawful and ordered his immediate release, while holding that the reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest had not been communicated to him in accordance with law.The court was hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by a Farukkhabad resident -Mohd Yaseen, who was arrested on September 14, 2026, according to the arrest memo.
However, in his petition, he claimed that he had actually been taken into custody on September 13, when he went to the police station along with his lawyer to join the investigation into the death of the complainant’s daughter. The complainant’s daughter had allegedly died by suicide because of harassment by the petitioner.
The lower court had also rejected his bail application. However, the high court found that the arrest memo placed on record by the petitioner was deficient in material particularly relating to the reasons for arrest.The court noted that the copy of the reasons for arrest furnished to the petitioner mentioned only section 108 of the BNS (Abetment of suicide). Interestingly, as the court noted, the remaining particulars, that a case had been registered and that evidence had emerged indicating that the deceased had committed suicide on account of harassment allegedly meted out to her by the petitioner, were conspicuously absent from the copy supplied to the petitioner. The court observed that the only logical inference from these circumstances was that the petitioner had never been supplied with the reasons for arrest.