The Allahabad High Court dismissed two habeas corpus petitions after uncovering concealed parallel proceedings. The discovery prompted costs against the petitioner and an apology to Bareilly's police chief.Stock photo used for illustrationPrayagraj,Nov 3, 2026 20:56 ISTThe Allahabad High Court has dismissed two habeas corpus petitions filed by a litigant who concealed earlier proceedings while trying to address shortcomings in his initial petition, Press Trust of India reported.The court also expressed regret for subjecting Bareilly Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya to “unwarranted” criticism and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on petitioner Omendra Yadav for suppressing facts and suggesting falsehoods.A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev imposed costs of Rs 25,000 for each petition.
It directed Yadav to pay the amount directly to Arya within a month, failing which it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.In his first habeas corpus petition, Yadav alleged that the Bareilly police had illegally detained him from May 8 to May 13 before formally arresting him. When the court sought CCTV footage from the police station for that period, the state government’s counsel said a severe storm and rain had caused a short circuit that destroyed the digital video recorder.Taking a strict view of the matter on May 26, the High Court directed Arya to file a personal affidavit explaining the lapse in line with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the Paramvir Singh Saini versus Baljit Singh case.
On October 27, the bench examined the affidavit and questioned how a storm between May 13 and May 15 could have erased recordings from earlier dates. Observing that the affidavit appeared misleading at first sight, it directed Arya to appear in person.However, during the hearing on October 30, the bench learnt that Yadav had filed a second habeas corpus petition on May 26, shortly after the state responded to his first petition, without disclosing the earlier proceedings, PTI reported.The second petition did not mention the pending case and was presented as a fresh plea.
It sought to address gaps in the first petition concerning the exact date, place and timeline of the alleged illegal detention.The bench said Yadav had disentitled himself from relief by failing to approach the court with clean hands. It also said the office of the additional government advocate should have flagged the duplicate filing at the outset.“This court would not have had to face the embarrassment of making the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, the target of its angst,” the bench said in its October 30 order.
It added that it “sincerely regrets having subjected (him) to such verbal harshness which was unwarranted”.The High Court ultimately dismissed both petitions, ordered Yadav to pay Rs 50,000 to Arya and regretted its earlier criticism of the police officer after discovering that the petitioner had concealed the second filing.- Ends