Prayagraj: While applying the US doctrine of ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ in the context of constitutional protections under Articles 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 22 (safeguards against arrest and detention), the Allahabad High Court has held that a subsequent formal arrest and remand cannot legitimise an earlier illegal detention.The high court held that where the initial detention of a person is unlawful, a subsequent arrest, even if supported by valid grounds, and the remand proceedings flowing from it would also stand vitiated.A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev made the observation on Sept 28 while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Prayagraj resident Ravi Chaurasiya, who alleged illegal detention by the police.While directing his release, the court also awarded him Rs 30,000 compensation, which is to be recovered from those responsible for his illegal detention.Chaurasiya was formally arrested by the police on Sept 16 after keeping him under illegal detention for 31 hours.The court found that the police formally arrested Chaurasiya only after his mother approached the high court with a habeas corpus writ petition.According to his case, he was taken into police custody on Sept 14, 2026, from Ayodhya in connection with a cheating and forgery case and brought to Soraon police station. However, no arrest was shown at that stage.His mother visited the police station the following day to ascertain his whereabouts before moving the high court.On Sept 16, the police formally arrested him, recorded the arrest in the general diary, conducted his medical examination and produced him before a magistrate, who remanded him in judicial custody.The high court had earlier called for CCTV footage from the police station. However, it found that the counter-affidavit filed by the station house officer and investigating officer admitted the petitioner’s custody. The SHO attributed the failure to record the petitioner’s presence in the general diary to an inadvertent mistake. However, the court rejected this explanation.In its order, the court also examined the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine, which originated in American criminal jurisprudence.“In a situation where the subsequent arrest follows an unlawful detention of the corpus, the arrest is rendered unlawful as are the proceedings of remand by the judicial magistrate as the genesis leading to the arrest was unlawful detention of the accused violating his rights under Article 22”, the court added.The court explained that the initial unlawful detention is the “poisonous tree”, while subsequent actions flowing from it constitute its ‘fruit’.The court also relied on Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol vs State of Punjab, noting that it has been held that where an arrest is unconstitutional for violating Article 22(1), subsequent remand orders are also vitiated.The court also found non-compliance with Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in the present case. The provision concerns an accused’s rights to meet an advocate of his choice during investigation.The court directed the commissioner, Prayagraj, to conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility. The court also recorded its displeasure with the conduct of the Soraon SHO and directed that, if the inquiry finds negligence on his part, the court’s displeasure should be entered in his service record.While clarifying that the police may re-arrest the petitioner in accordance with law and the safeguards laid down by Supreme Court, the court directed his forthwith release, if not wanted in any other case.
