Prayagraj: Expressing regret for subjecting a senior police officer to unwarranted judicial angst, the Allahabad high court has dismissed two habeas corpus petitions filed by a litigant who concealed earlier proceedings while attempting to cure defects in his initial filing.A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on petitioner Omendra Yadav (Rs 25,000 per petition) for suppressing facts and suggesting falsehood before the court.The court ordered that the amount be paid directly to Bareilly SSP Anurag Arya within one month, failing which it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.In his habeas corpus writ petition, the petitioner had alleged illegal detention by Bareilly police between May 8 and May 13 before his formal arrest.When CCTV footage of the police station for the period was sought, the state govt counsel submitted that a severe storm and rain had caused a short circuit, destroying the digital video recorder (DVR).Taking a strict view on May 26, the HC directed SSP Anurag Arya to submit a personal affidavit explaining the lapse in accordance with the Supreme Court’s landmark guidelines in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.On Oct 27, the bench scrutinised the SSP’s affidavit and questioned how a storm occurring between May 13 and May 15 could erase recordings from earlier dates. Observing prima facie that the affidavit appeared misleading, the court summoned the officer to appear in person.However, at the Oct 30 hearing, the bench discovered that Yadav had filed a second, undisclosed habeas corpus petition on May 26, shortly after the state responded to his first petition.The second petition omitted any mention of the pending case and presented itself as a fresh filing while attempting to address gaps in the pleadings regarding the exact date, place and timeline of the alleged illegal detention.Calling out the tactical deception, the court noted that the petitioner had disentitled himself to relief by failing to approach it with clean hands. The court also pointed out that the office of the additional govt advocate (AGA) should have flagged the duplicate filing at the outset.“This court would not have had to face the embarrassment of making the senior superintendent of police, Bareilly, the target of its angst,” the court noted in its Oct 30 order, adding that “it sincerely regrets having subjected him to such verbal harshness which was unwarranted”.