Allahabad High Court Invokes US ‘Fruit of the Poisonous Tree’ Doctrine to Release Accused After Illegal Detention
The Allahabad High Court recently released a person accused of committing a crime who was formally arrested by the police on September 16, but only after he had been unlawfully detained for 31 hours.
A Bench consisting of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdeva noted that the police formally arrested the accused Ravi Chaurasiya only after his mother filed a writ petition for habeas corpus in the High Court. Before that time, he had been held in unlawful detention.
Therefore, where the initial action of unlawful detention itself was violative of the right of the corpus under Article 22, the same cannot be set right by a subsequent action of the police by formally arresting the corpus on 16.09.2026 at 10.45 am."
The Court dismissed the police's assertion that they forgot to record an entry in the General Diary for Chaurasiya's custody for over 24 hours. The Court further noted that he was arrested for purchasing a property owned by a gangster.
If, in the inquiry conducted against the deponent, the Commissioner is satisfied that there has been negligence on his part, in such an eventuality, the displeasure which is recorded in this order, be entered in his service record," it directed.
While considering Chaurasiya's request for release in the case, the Court evaluated the doctrine of 'fruit of poisonous tree' in relation to his unlawful detention, which was subsequently legalized by presenting him before a Magistrate.
The doctrine of 'fruit of poisonous tree' is a doctrine that developed in the United States of America. It prohibits the use of any evidence obtained illegally.
"In the present case, this Court evaluated the doctrine of 'fruit of the poisonous tree' not in the context of the law of evidence, but in its applicability to constitutional law with particular reference to civil liberties guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.
This doctrine is applicable to the law pertaining to detention and arrest," the Court said.
The Court added that when a subsequent arrest is made following the unlawful detention of an individual, both the arrest and the subsequent remand proceedings carried out by the judicial magistrate are deemed unlawful as the root cause resulting in the arrest is the unlawful detention of the accused that violated his rights under Article 22.
The Court proceeded to state that when the police detention itself is violative of Articles 21 and 22, the subsequent arrest, regardless of whether there exist legitimate reasons for the arrest and the subsequent remand proceedings before the magistrate may otherwise appear valid, all stand vitiated due to the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
In the case under review, this Court assessed the doctrine of 'fruit of the poisonous tree' not in the context of the law of evidence, but in its applicability to constitutional law with particular reference to civil liberties. Allahabad High Court Chaurasiya's mother approached the High Court on September 15 to ascertain the whereabouts of her son.
The police formally arrested him a day later and remanded him to judicial custody by a magistrate. In response to the petition, Deen Dayal Singh, SHO of Police Station Soraon, admitted that while Chaurasiya was placed in custody at 03:40 am on September 15, no entry was recorded in the General Diary. Records indicated that he was formally arrested only on September 16 at 10.45 am.
In a judgment delivered on September 28, the Court concluded that formal arrest was made to avoid accountability for an unlawful detention after learning about the habeas petition filed by his mother.
The Court also determined that accused was never informed about his right to obtain legal representation from counsel of his choice.
Although Court acknowledged that such right arises only upon formal arrest, Court added, "This Court cannot permit a process whereby police do not arrest an accused/suspect to circumvent same rigors of same; call him to police station; interrogate him for 5-6 hours; and basing solely on self-incriminating statements of suspect; make him an accused because that would infringe upon his right against self-incrimination; which were made on account of lack of counsel
The Court observed that it is responsibility of police to notify person taken into custody regardless of whether formally arrested that he/she has right to have counsel of his/her choice present in police station during interrogation in accordance with Section 38 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
"Failure to notify person taken into custody that he/she has right to obtain legal representation from counsel of his/her choice present in police station during interrogation in accordance with Section 38 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) will result in vitiation of all information provided by suspect — particularly self-incriminating statements — given to police officer — and which are otherwise inadmissible under Evidence Act," Court said. Based upon circumstances surrounding arrest, Court granted habeas corpus petition and ordered State to compensate Chaurasiya with ₹30,000.
In granting Chaurasiya's release from custody, Court stated that any prospective arrest may only be effectuated based upon warrant of arrest issued by Magistrate concerned.
Under these circumstances, this Court having declared initial detention of corpus as unlawful and applying doctrine of 'fruit of poisonous tree' in relation to hereinabove discussed issues
orders immediate release from custody provided there exists no other reason for detaining him/her," Court ordered.
Senior Advocate Imran Ullah represented Petitioner along with Advocate Devesh Kumar Shukla.
