Today’s briefing is led by the Allahabad High Court, which has ordered the State to pay ₹1.25 lakh to a young man kept in police custody for five days without any lawful record of arrest. The Supreme Court has also called for explanations after an undertrial was not produced before the trial court for about 14 months, while the Lucknow Bench and the Delhi High Court have clarified the law on acid attack offences and on forfeiture of earnest money in property deals.
Allahabad High Court Awards ₹1.25 Lakh for Five Days of Illegal Police Detention
What happened: A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev allowed a habeas corpus petition in Gyanti Devi and Others v. State of U.P. and Others. The case arose from an FIR registered in July 2026 at Salempur police station in Deoria, alleging that the petitioner had taken away the complainant’s 18-year-old daughter. The couple said they had married and were living in Pune, from where police picked them up in late August. The young man was kept in custody from 28 August to 2 September 2026, but his arrest was shown only on 2 September. After the High Court called for CCTV footage, a Circle Officer’s inquiry report admitted that the Investigating Officer had held him for five days without lawful authority and had shown a fabricated arrest.
What the court held: Relying on the police department’s own inquiry, the Bench accepted that the detention was unlawful and awarded compensation of ₹25,000 for each of the five days, totalling ₹1.25 lakh. The State may recover the amount from officers found guilty in the departmental inquiry already started against the Investigating Officer, and the Court said the strictest punishment should be considered if the charge is proved. The award does not stop the young man from suing for further damages in a civil court. He was ordered to be released unless wanted in another case, and the Court recorded its appreciation for the senior officers who conducted a candid inquiry. The criminal case itself will be decided by the trial court purely on evidence.
What it means for you: Police custody begins the moment a person is actually held, not when an arrest memo is later written. Families whose relatives are picked up without paperwork should note the date, time and place, the names of officers involved, and ask for CCTV footage of the police station to be preserved. A habeas corpus petition before the High Court remains the fastest remedy for unlawful custody, and courts are now putting a clear money value on each day of illegal detention. Adults who marry by choice also have constitutional protection, even if their families object. For help with arrest, custody or habeas corpus matters, see our Criminal Defense & Criminal Law practice.
Supreme Court Wants Answers After Undertrial Is Not Produced in Court for 14 Months
What happened: In Dev Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar, a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu of the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the Patna High Court’s refusal of bail to an accused facing charges under the UAPA, the IPC, the Explosives Act and the Arms Act. He had surrendered in May 2025 and a supplementary charge sheet was filed in July 2025, yet he was not produced before the trial court in Gaya for about 14 months. As a result, charges had not even been framed. The State admitted the lapse in its own affidavit but could not explain it.
What the court directed: The Bench called the situation an undesirable development and noted that the trial court also did not appear to have insisted on the accused’s production. It directed the Investigating Officer to report the real reason for the non-production, and asked the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to obtain a report from the Gaya trial court and place it before the Supreme Court in a sealed cover by 15 November 2026. Since the main accused in the same case had already been granted bail, the Court found the petitioner’s case stood on a better footing and released him on interim bail. The matter will be heard again on 17 November 2026.
What it means for you: Even in serious cases, an accused person has a right to a trial that actually moves forward. If jail authorities or police fail to produce an undertrial before the court, the trial stalls and the person stays in custody without any progress. Families should track hearing dates closely, check whether the accused was produced (physically or by video link), and raise repeated non-production before the trial court and in any bail application. Long, unexplained delay and parity with co-accused who have been granted bail are recognised grounds for seeking bail. Our High Court & Appellate Litigation team handles bail matters before higher courts.
Lucknow Bench: Acid Burns Must Leave a Lasting Impact for the Acid Attack Offence
What happened: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court, sitting at Lucknow, decided a criminal appeal in Teerathraj v. State of U.P. against a conviction by the Sessions Court at Raebareli. The appellant had been convicted under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (acid attack) and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000. The prosecution said the victim suffered corrosive burns on about 35% of his body, but a medical certificate issued 13 days after the 2017 incident recorded no injury or visible marks, and there was no expert opinion on any lasting harm.
What the court held: The Court explained that Section 326A covers serious, lasting consequences such as permanent or partial damage, deformity or disfigurement, and that a burn must be read in that company. In its words, “the injury must have some lasting impact on the body part injured.” A simple burn that healed within about two weeks without marks or loss of function did not meet that test. The Court still found that the appellant had thrown a corrosive substance and caused hurt, so it altered the conviction to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means), which carries a maximum of three years. As he had already served more than three years, the Court waived the fine deposit and ordered his release unless required in another case.
What it means for you: In acid attack cases, the medical evidence decides which offence is made out. For victims and their families, it is vital to keep every treatment record, follow-up report and photograph, and to insist on a proper medical opinion about scarring or lasting damage, because these documents shape the charge and the sentence. For accused persons, the ruling shows that appellate courts will examine whether the injury actually meets the legal definition. Offences committed after 1 July 2024 fall under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which carries a corresponding acid attack provision, so the same evidentiary questions are likely to arise. See our Criminal Defense & Criminal Law page for more.
Delhi High Court: Sellers Cannot Automatically Keep Earnest Money When a Property Deal Fails
What happened: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court decided an appeal in Somnath Kharbanda (since deceased) through LRs v. Arvinder Kaur (since deceased) through LRs. In 2008, the parties had signed an agreement to sell a property in Ramesh Nagar, Delhi, for ₹40 lakh, and the buyer paid ₹4 lakh as earnest money. The agreement allowed the sellers to forfeit this amount if the buyer defaulted. The deal fell through, with each side blaming the other. The sellers claimed they had suffered a loss of about ₹4.60 lakh on another property deal, but the trial court ordered them to refund the ₹4 lakh with interest.
What the court held: Applying Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and settled Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that forfeiture of earnest money is not automatic on breach. The amount written in the agreement is only the upper limit of compensation, and the party wanting to keep the money must show that it actually suffered a loss or legal injury. Here, the sellers could not prove their claimed loss because the original documents were not produced, and no other reliable evidence was led. The appeal was dismissed and the refund with interest was upheld.
What it means for you: For home buyers, a forfeiture clause does not mean the seller can simply pocket your token or earnest money if the deal collapses; you may be able to recover it unless the seller proves real loss. For sellers, if you want to retain earnest money, keep clear records of the buyer’s default and of any actual financial loss, such as a lost alternative deal, and preserve original documents. Both sides should draft sale agreements carefully, with clear timelines and obligations about title documents. Our Property, Real Estate & Waqf Law and Drafting & Legal Documentation pages explain how we assist with such transactions.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you or your business, you can book a consultation with our team through the online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.