NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA District Unnao, Uttar Pradesh and tortured. The SO, PS Bangarmau, extorted Rs. 2 lakhs from the Complainant’s son for releasing him. 44 ii. Pursuant to the directions of the Commission, the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh sent a report stating that the SHO, PS Kotwali Unnao, arrested the accused Dharmendra on 12.05.2015, in connection with Case No. 4/14 u/s 406/428/467/468 IPC PS Kotwali Mainpuri, and sent him to Mainpuri. In this regard, a GD Entry No. 41 at 22.45 hours was also made in the Rozenamcha on 12.07.2015. The report refutes the allegations of illegal detention and torture of complainant’s son. iii. The Commission considered the report and observed that the Enquiry Officer did not verify the call details of victim’s mobile No. 8400947563 from 4 to 12 July, 2015 so as to find out the location of the Complainant’s son. Thus, the Police report does not seem reliable. Therefore, the Commission directed the Deputy Inspector General, Lucknow Zone, Uttar Pradesh, to conduct an enquiry into the matter from a senior officer other than that of District Unnao. iv. The Inspector General, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow has sent a report stating that the complainant’s son and Shri Amit Sarikwal were jointly doing the business of potato trading. After a dispute over money, Shri Amit Sarikwal filed a complaint Case No. 4/14 under Sections 406/428/467/468 IPC in the Mainpuri Court. After issuance of warrant against Dharmeder Katiyar on 6 July 2015, the Police, PS Bangarmau arrested him on 12 July, 2015 and was produced before the Magistrate on the same day. As regards tracking the location of the given mobile no. of the Complainant’s son, it was mentioned that Dharmender Katiyar is a resident of Bangarmau area of Unnao, and he might be moving in the area for his work, so it is possible that his location is shown in the given area. Supporting the earlier report, this report also refutes the allegations of illegal detention and commissioning of bribe. v. The Commission considered the matter on 07.05.2018 and inter alia observed that the Commission is still not convinced with the contention given in the report. In the light of the fact that the complainant had sent his complaint to the Commission on 9.07.2015 through FAX and the same was received in the Commission on 10.07.2015, i.e. prior to the alleged date of said arrest (12.07. 2015) shown by the Police, the enquiry reports of the Police cannot be relied upon in view of the fact that the Complainant could not anticipate on 9.07.2015 that his son would be arrested on 12.07.2015. Hence, there is strong probability that Dharmender Katiyar was picked up by the Police on or before 9.07 2015, i.e., prior to 12.07.2015, and kept in illegal detention. However, no direct evidence is available regarding payment of Rs. 2, 00,000/- as bribe to the Police by the complainant. vi. The Commission has issued a notice under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, through its Chief Secretary, requiring it to show cause as to why the Commission should not recommend payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the victim for his illegal detention in police custody. vii. No reply to the notice has been received from the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. ANNUAL REPORT 2018-19