This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
₹5 Lakh Compensation for Arrest Despite Court Stay Order — Allahabad HC in Anil Soni v. State of UP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 302
Court: Allahabad High Court
Bench: Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
Date: May 29–30, 2026
Petitioner: Anil Soni
Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Facts
An FIR under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage) and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered against Anil Soni at the Itwa Police Station, Siddharthnagar district. Soni approached the Allahabad High Court and on April 1, 2026 obtained an interim stay on his arrest; the order was passed in the presence of Government Counsel and the informant’s counsel, making state awareness of the protection indisputable.
On April 4, 2026 — three days after the stay — the SHO of Itwa Police Station arrested Soni. His brother swore an affidavit and counsel contacted the police; the arrest proceeded regardless. Soni filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention.
Holding
The Division Bench found the detention constituted illegal custody and awarded:
- ₹5 lakh compensation payable by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- Disciplinary proceedings against the SHO for “dereliction in the due discharge of official duty.”
- Compliance affidavit before the court by July 13, 2026.
The bench rejected the State’s defence that the SHO lacked a physical copy of the order. Since the April 1 order was passed before both Government Counsel and the informant’s counsel, “all relevant state authorities and respondents were fully aware of the protection granted.” Absence of a physical copy is not a valid justification for arresting someone in direct defiance of a judicial directive. The bench described this as part of an “unfortunate trend” of UP Police disrespecting court orders.
Principle
An interim stay order on arrest binds the police from the moment it is passed in open court, including through their counsel. The police cannot take shelter behind absence of physical paperwork when they were represented before the court that passed the order. Where a person is arrested in violation of an existing High Court order, compensation under Article 226 is available directly in writ jurisdiction — Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 — without recourse to a separate civil suit.
Relevant Provisions
- Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including false promise of marriage.
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Protection against atrocities on scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
- Article 21, Constitution of India — Right to life and personal liberty.
- Article 226, Constitution of India — Writ jurisdiction of High Courts, including habeas corpus.
Useful Resources
- LiveLaw — Full Report on Anil Soni v. State of UP, 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 302
- Law Trend — Cross-verification Report
- Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa — Indian Kanoon
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.