PRAYAGRAJ, Nov. 4 -- Expressing regret for having been "unduly harsh" towards the Bareilly SSP, the Allahabad high court dismissed two habeas corpus petitions filed by a litigant who concealed prior proceedings to cure defects in his initial filing. A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev penalised the petitioner Omendra Yadav with Rs.50,000 in costs (Rs.25,000 per petition) for resorting to "suppressio veri (suppression of truth) and suggestio falsi (suggestion of falsehood)". The court ordered the amount to be paid directly to Bareilly SSP Anurag Arya within one month, failing which it will be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner alleged illegal detention by Bareilly Police between May 8 and May 13, 2026, prior to his formal arrest. When the CCTV footage of the police station for that period was sought, the state government counsel pleaded that a severe storm and rain had caused a short circuit, destroying the digital video recorder. Taking a strict view on May 26, the high court 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 vs Baljit Singh. On October 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 bench summoned the officer to appear in person. However, during the October 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 filing omitted any mention of the ongoing case, presenting itself as a fresh petition while attempting to fix pleading gaps regarding the exact date, place, and timeline of the alleged illegal detention. The bench noted that the petitioner had disentitled himself from relief by failing to approach the court with clean hands. Crucially, the court pointed out that the additional government advocate office should have flagged this duplicate filing at the very beginning....