Allahabad HC: Illegal Detention Voids Arrest, Applies Poisonous Tree Doctrine

• The Allahabad High Court ruled that an initial illegal detention cannot be cured by a subsequent formal arrest or judicial remand.
• The court applied the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine to constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22.
• This doctrine dictates that if initial police custody violates constitutional protections, all subsequent actions, including formal arrest and remand, are vitiated.
• The ruling relied on the Supreme Court's 2026 judgment in *Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab*.
• The case involved a habeas corpus petition where police admitted to not recording the initial custody of Ravi Chaurasiya for over 24 hours.

Where the detention in police custody itself is violative of Articles 21 and 22, the subsequent arrest and remand proceedings stand vitiated by the application of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine.

The Allahabad High Court recently addressed a significant case of alleged illegal detention, stemming from a habeas corpus petition filed by Ravi Chaurasiya and another individual. The petitioners claimed police had unlawfully held Mr. Chaurasiya. According to the petition, police officers from Soraon Police Station in Prayagraj took Mr. Chaurasiya into custody on September 14, 2026, around 9 pm, from Ayodhya. This action was reportedly in connection with a case involving the purchase of property belonging to a gangster, falling under the Gangsters Act.

Upon being brought to the Soraon police station the same day, no formal arrest was recorded. The following day, September 15, Mr. Chaurasiya's mother visited the police station to inquire about his whereabouts and well-being, and the habeas corpus petition was subsequently lodged with the High Court on that very day. It was not until September 16, at 10:45 am, that police formally arrested Mr. Chaurasiya, entered the arrest into the general diary, conducted a medical examination, and presented him before a Magistrate, who then remanded him to judicial custody.

During the court proceedings, the High Court requested CCTV footage from the police station. However, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Soraon, who also served as the Investigating Officer, admitted in a counter-affidavit that the General Diary entry documenting Mr. Chaurasiya's initial arrival at the police station had not been made. The SHO characterized this omission as an "inadvertent mistake." Given this admission, the court determined that further examination of the CCTV footage was unnecessary. The court ultimately concluded that Mr. Chaurasiya had remained in police custody for over 24 hours without a formal arrest or production before a Magistrate, effectively rejecting the SHO's explanation for the lapse.

In its pivotal ruling, the Allahabad High Court declared that an initial illegal detention, which violates constitutional rights, cannot be remedied by a subsequent formal arrest or judicial remand under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court explicitly applied the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine to underscore this principle, particularly in the context of protections afforded by Article 21, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, and Article 22, pertaining to safeguards against arrest and detention.

The "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine, originating from American jurisprudence, typically concerns the exclusion of evidence obtained through unlawful searches or other constitutional infringements. It posits that if the initial action is unlawful, any subsequent action directly stemming from that illegality may also be considered tainted. While Indian courts have not adopted this doctrine as a general rule of evidence, the bench, comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev, clarified its application here in the distinct realm of constitutional rights related to detention and arrest.

The High Court's decision drew heavily upon the Supreme Court's 2026 judgment in *Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab*. That landmark ruling established that an arrest found to be unconstitutional and in violation of Article 22(1) renders subsequent remand orders vitiated, meaning they are invalidated. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the later filing of a chargesheet or the taking of cognisance cannot validate such an unconstitutional arrest.

Extending this established principle, the Allahabad High Court unequivocally stated that when police custody itself contravenes Articles 21 and 22, the subsequent arrest, even if based on otherwise valid grounds, and the ensuing remand proceedings before a Magistrate, are all vitiated. The court emphasized that actions following an illegal detention are inherently illegal and also violate Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, thereby perpetuating the initial illegality throughout all subsequent actions and proceedings.

This ruling provides a critical precedent for lawyers challenging police actions, affirming that initial illegal detention cannot be cured by subsequent formal arrest or remand. Practitioners can leverage the 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' doctrine, as applied by the Allahabad HC, to argue that all subsequent proceedings are vitiated if the initial custody violated constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22, thereby strengthening grounds for habeas corpus petitions and challenging the validity of arrests and remands.

Source: Reporting on a significant Allahabad High Court judgment.