Manish @ Manish Kumar @ Manish Rawat Thru. His Sister Poonam Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

In pursuance to the order dated 18.11.2025, the personal affidavit of Sri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Inspector, P.S. Deva, District Barabanki and second supplementary on behalf of the petitioner filed today are taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-respondents.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to produce the corpus of the detenue/petitioner before this Court and after taking his statement to set him free.

¶13

Learned AGA states that the petitioner was released on bail from the District Jail, Barabanki on 26.11.2025 in pursuance to the bail order dated 7.11.2025.

¶14

As per averments made in the petition, the petitioner is said to have been taken away by the police on 6.10.2025 at 11 PM, consequently the petitioner's sister informed the respondent nos. 1 to 4 through an IGRS Portal application on 7.10.2025 regarding the impending danger to the life and limb of the petitioner. Copy of the IGRS complaint is annexure-1 to the writ petition.

¶15

HABC No. 381 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

The writ petition has itself been filed on 10.10.2025 and the affidavit has been sworn at 11:25 AM.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court had directed for filing of a personal affidavit by the competent authority which has been filed on 18.11.2025.

¶19

From the first affidavit dated 18.11.2025, it emerges that a complainant had alleged that on 4.5.2025 his daughter, who was alone at home, was molested by the petitioner. The application was given to the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki on 3.10.2025, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the said affidavit.

¶20

It has been averred in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit that on the basis of the said complaint, the petitioner was called to the police station on 7.10.2025 and questioned, to which, the petitioner allegedly replied that the victim is his wife, with whom he got married on 8.6.2025. It has further been indicated that the petitioner sought time to produce photographs and other proof pertaining to the marriage with the result that he was allowed to go from the police station on 7.10.2025.

¶21

Subsequent thereto, it transpires that as the victim was a minor and unmarried, consequently, the FIR was lodged on 10.10.2025 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner was arrested on 11.10.2025. A copy of the FIR is annexure-3 to the affidavit dated 18.11.2025. A perusal of the FIR indicates that it was registered vide FIR No. 0508 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 at 19:19 hours (7:19 PM).

¶22

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was taken away by the police on 6.10.2025 following which the petitioner's sister lodged IGRS complaint on 7.10.2025. The writ petition was subsequently filed on 10.10.2025 with an affidavit at 11:25 AM. The contention is that the aforesaid FIR has been lodged on the same date i.e. 10.10.2025 at 19:19 hours (7:15 PM), therefore, petitioner raises a suspicion about the affidavit, which was filed by the investigation officer stating that the petitioner was arrested on 11.10.2025. The lodging of the FIR on 10.10.2025 at 7:19 PM, after the habeas corpus petition was filed

¶23

HABC No. 381 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

at 11:25 AM, raises suspicion on the part of the authorities.The other aspect as per the matter is that the IGRS complaint dated 7.10.2025 has been filed as annexure-1 to the petition which was filed at 7:15 PM. In the affidavit filed today, the authorities have indicated about the said complaint having been redressed on 31.10.2025 but the alleged redressal only indicates about the lodging of the FIR on 10.10.2025 and that the petitioner was arrested on 11.10.2025 which also does not inspire any confidence inasmuch as it does not redress and address as to what has been indicated by the petitioner's sister in the said complaint lodged on 7.10.2025.

¶26

Further along with the supplementary affidavit, which has been filed by the petitioner, the photographs and videos of the petitioner, prepared by his advocate, sitting inside the police station on 10.10.2025 at 3:37 PM (Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit) have also not been explained by the respondents. As per the affidavit dated 18.11.2025 filed by the authorities, the petitioner is said to have been summoned on 7.10.2025 and then let go and consequently the same does not explain the presence of the petitioner in the police station on 10.10.2025 at 3:37 PM.

¶27

Thus, prima facie, it is apparent that the FIR has only been lodged after filing of the instant petition before this Court on 10.10.2025, the arrest has been shown on 11.10.2025 at 11:30 AM and the petitioner has been produced before the learned Magistrate at 13:11 hours on 11.10.2025.

¶28

All these are glaring facts and anomalies, which are to be explained by the authorities in order to wriggle out from the doubt as has been expressed by the petitioner and which is prima facie apparent of the highhandedness on the part of the authorities as alleged.

¶29

Accordingly, considering the aforesaid, a personal affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki be filed within two weeks explaining all the aforesaid facts as indicated by this Court.

¶30

List this case on 8.1.2026.

¶31

In case the personal affidavit is not filed, the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki shall appear in person before this Court along with the record

HABC No. 381 of 2025

4

to assist the Court.

(Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)

¶36

December 11, 2025 AKK

¶37

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish @ Manish Kumar @ Manish Rawat Thru. His Sister Poonam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish @ Manish Kumar @ Manish Rawat Thru. His Sister Poonam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Golu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Vinay Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Ali Ahmad @ Ali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Prateek Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Ali Hasan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Lko. and Others

Dev Naryan Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others