CW-2026-0023Siddharthnagar, Uttar PradeshJudgment 29 May 2026

Itwa Man And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

The Allahabad High Court held that an Itwa man was arrested on 4 April 2026 by the SHO and kept in jail till 29 April 2026 despite a coordinate Bench stay of arrest dated 1 April 2026 passed in the presence of the AGA, which counsel personally brought to the SHO notice. The Court found the SHO paid no heed even after the habeas petition, acting mala fide with dereliction of duty and indiscipline in violating a court order. Relying on Rudal Shah and Nilabati Behera, it ordered Rs 5 lakh compensation within one month recoverable from the SHO, directed disciplinary proceedings against him, and ordered the SP Siddharthnagar to file a compliance affidavit. The judgment twice mistypes the district as Gautam Buddh Nagar; PS Itwa, the CJM and the SP are all Siddharthnagar. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 29 May 2026 in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 451 of 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Coram: Siddharth, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: SHO, PS Itwa, Siddharthnagar; Sub-Inspector, PS Itwa, Siddharthnagar, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).

Register number
UP 55 CW 0002
Case reference
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 451 of 2026 / 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 302
Court and date
Allahabad High Court (Coram: Siddharth, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.), 29 May 2026
Officer(s) at the material time
SHO, PS Itwa, Siddharthnagar; Sub-Inspector, PS Itwa, Siddharthnagar
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Therefore, it is absolutely clear that respondent no.3 made no efforts to get the order of the court complied. Therefore, his conduct proves that he deserves to be punishment of dereliction in due discharge of his official duty and also …” (at para 14)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

Judgment dated 29 May 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“Therefore, it is absolutely clear that respondent no.3 made no efforts to get the order of the court complied. Therefore, his conduct proves that he deserves to be punishment of dereliction in due discharge of his official duty and also …” (para 14)

Institutional response

1
29 May 2026

Order issued

Concluded
Allahabad High Court External · Binding

The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 302
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.