Aftab with his mother after his release. (Naeem Ansari)

New Delhi, Jan. 18: Whipped with a belt till he screamed in pain, Aftab Alam Ansari finally walked free after police conceded they had made a mistake in arresting him, but lawyers said the error could prove costly for the law keepers.

They said the 26-year-old Calcutta resident, picked up late last month in connection with the recent court blasts in Uttar Pradesh, could sue the cops for illegal confinement, harassment and mental torture.

He could also, at the same time, file a case of criminal defamation for loss of reputation. “Both these options are without prejudice to each other,” criminal lawyer Ashok Arora said.

Ansari was picked up by a joint team of Uttar Pradesh and Bengal police on the basis of statements of two suspects arrested earlier in Lucknow. The special task force probing the blasts later realised he was not the man they were looking for and admitted that it was a case of “mistaken identity”.

The CESC employee, released yesterday, could have been freed on Tuesday itself but had to spend two more nights in a Lucknow jail because the police mentioned a wrong name in their release petition and then a magistrate’s release order got misplaced.

Ansari yesterday told The Telegraph he was slapped twice and “whipped with a belt” by one of his interrogators.

“I was whipped until I screamed in pain,” he said, recalling the nightmare.

Supreme Court lawyer and rights activist Prashant Bhushan said hitting with a belt or beating amounted to third-degree torture. “The police have no right to even touch a person.”

Lawyers said Ansari could move a court either in Uttar Pradesh or Bengal for damages. As the police department falls under the home ministry, the chief and the home secretaries of the two states could also be made parties to the case.

“It should be easy to prove defamation in this case as the police have admitted their mistake,” Supreme Court lawyer Rana Mukherjee said.

But Arora cautioned that whether if a court actually granted compensation or not would depend more on the judge’s sensitivity. “Though courts are now liberal in awarding compensation in such cases of illegal detention, different judges have different approaches,” he said.

One judge, the lawyer added, might take it very seriously as an “infringement” of a person’s right to life and liberty, whereas another might consider it a bona fide mistake in the emerging terror scenario.

Mukherjee said a safer option would be to move the National Human Rights Commission, which routinely awards damages in such cases of illegal detention by the police.