Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Alleging Illegal Arrest By UP Police

One Sidharth Rastogi had filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court seeking the release of his brother Umang Rastogi from alleged “illegal arrest” by the UP Police, which the apex court today refused to admit and asked the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court.Rastogi, through his lawyers Anand Kumar and Advocate-on-Record Aditya Giri, argued before a Supreme Court vacation bench of Justices M M Sundresh and P K Mishra that the UP Police “blatantly violated the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and arrested him out of vengeance at Haldwani, Uttarakhand, without even communicating written grounds of arrest.”It was submitted that he and his family, who are

residing in the states of Uttarakhand and Delhi, are being continuously targeted by the UP Police.

Firstly, it was submitted that the petitioner’s father was “unlawfully abducted on 28.11.2025 from Delhi in a private car with a number plate that of a scooter by the UP Police, illegally arrested and kept in detention at Bisrakh P.S., Uttar Pradesh, without producing him before any magistrate for five days.”It was further stated that “against that illegal detention, the petitioner’s father approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court under its writ jurisdiction (the said matter is pending).”Sidharth contended before the Supreme Court that his brother Umang was illegally arrested on 26.12.25 from Haldwani, Uttarakhand, without being provided written grounds of arrest and without securing transit remand, brought to Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and is in continued illegal custody. He further alleged that even the learned remand magistrate passed an absolutely illegal remand order in a mechanical manner.The petitioner was produced before Shri Sumit Kumar, CJ (SD)/FTC, learned remand magistrate, District Court Surajpur, and it was submitted that his arrest is illegal as neither written grounds of arrest were provided nor was a transit remand secured before bringing him from Uttarakhand to Uttar Pradesh, rendering the arrest illegal in light of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.Lawyers Anand Kumar and Advocate-on-Record Aditya Giri submitted that they have serious and reasonable apprehension that if action is not taken against the “errant officials,” other members of the petitioner’s family may be subjected to false implication and illegal arrest.

After hearing submissions on behalf of the petitioner, the Supreme Court bench remarked, “You already approached the High Court (in the other matter from which this matter has emanated). Ideally, the High Court should deal with this matter also… that it is better for you. Even if we entertain this, one matter will be in the High Court and another matter will be before us.”The Supreme Court, therefore, did not incline to entertain the matter but gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court.