Allahabad High Court
SHAHIDA BANOversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that police investigations must not involve unnecessary harassment and must respect the personal liberty of the petitioner and her son.
Summary
Shahida Bano filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction that the police not harass her or her son, who is named in a criminal case, and that the pending application dated 13 August 2026 be disposed of. The State’s standing counsel submitted that the son was called for investigation, was accompanied by his lawyer, and was subsequently sent back, indicating no harassment or abusive language. The Court recorded the instruction from the standing counsel and directed that during any investigation, the police must not cause unnecessary harassment. It further ordered that personal life and liberty shall not be violated and that the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, be instructed accordingly. The petition was disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the police investigation constitutes harassment violating the petitioner’s personal liberty under Article 226.
- Whether the Court can issue a direction to the police to prevent alleged harassment.
Subjects
- Article 226
- personal liberty
- police harassment
- investigation
- writ petition
- criminal case
- rights
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36509 of 2026
Shahida Bano
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rehana Siddique
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard Sri Nazakat Ali, learned Advocate holding brief of Ms. Rehana
Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for a direction to the police authority not to harass
and violate the personal life and liberty of the petitioner in the name of the
investigation and accordingly, she has prayed for a direction to the
respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to consider and dispose of the pending
application of the petitioner dated 13th August, 2026.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instruction in the matter and as
per the instruction since son of the petitioner has been named in the
criminal case, petitioner was only required for the purpose of
investigation and second day he was called for investigation and his
lawyer was also along with him and he has accordingly been sent back to
his place and thus there is no harassment being meted out to him and nor
any abusing language is used against him.
4. Instruction placed before the Court is taken on record, a copy of which
is also supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court itself.
5. In the circumstances, we dispose of this petition with a direction that
while making investigation in respect of criminal case, no unnecessary
harassment shall be meted out.
WRIC No. 36509 of 2026
2
6. Personal life and liberty shall not be violated by police authorities and
for which appropriate instructions may be issued by the Commissioner of
Police, Prayagraj, namely respondent No.- 4.
7. Let a copy of this order be intimated to the Commissioner of Police,
Prayagraj by learned Standing Counsel within 24 hours.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 21, 2026
Atmesh
Digitally signed by :-
ATMESH KESARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…