Case at a glance: In a habeas corpus petition, an Allahabad High Court Division Bench held a man's arrest unlawful after station CCTV footage contradicted police records. It ordered that CCTV must run “24/7 x 365” in police stations and that, when it fails, the police must record in the General Diary every person brought in, interrogated, arrested or released, with entry and exit times. It also awarded Rs 10,000 compensation for roughly 24 hours of illegal detention.
An FIR was registered on 9 May 2026 under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC over what was essentially a civil or commercial sand-mining arrangement. In July 2026 Raghvendra Dubey went to Police Station Sardhuwa in Chitrakoot. CCTV showed him entering at about 9:00 AM and leaving at 10:19 AM with the investigating officer in the complainant's vehicle, and returning at 8:24 PM.
Police records, however, showed his arrest at 3:30 PM and lock-up at 6:41 PM, and the police said he was arrested on non-bailable warrants. Of five cameras, only two exterior ones had retrievable footage; the three interior cameras had no saved recordings.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the detention and arrest unlawful under Article 21, and what are police obliged to do when station CCTV fails or footage is missing?
Why Missing Footage Cannot Mean Missing Accountability
As reported, the Bench held the arrest unlawful: Dubey was in constructive custody once the investigating officer took him away, the arrest memo was grossly deficient and witnessed only by police personnel, and the timeline contradicted the CCTV. The Court's concern was the possibility of manipulated records.
It laid down that CCTV must run continuously and that its failure does not relieve the police of the duty to maintain a contemporaneous record. The General Diary must show every person brought in, interrogated, arrested or released, with times; the SHO must record the failure and notify the Superintendent of Police for repair; and a signed, time-stamped receipt is required on release. Missing footage without proper documentation can attract an adverse inference under Section 119(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
What the Court Actually Held
- The arrest was unlawful and the petitioner was released.
- CCTV must function round the clock at police stations.
- When CCTV fails, the General Diary must record every entry, interrogation, arrest and release with times, and a time-stamped signed receipt is required on release.
- The SHO must record the CCTV failure and inform the district authorities for repair.
- Missing footage without documentation can attract an adverse inference under Section 119(g) BSA.
- The State was directed to pay Rs 10,000 compensation.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It turns the CCTV mandate into an evidentiary rule: a broken camera does not break the paper trail.
- It gives advocates a concrete set of documents to demand in illegal detention and habeas cases.
- It confirms that compensation is available even for a short unlawful detention.
- It treats an arrest memo that contradicts footage as evidence against the police version.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Counsel in Habeas, Illegal Detention and Bail Matters
- Seek CCTV footage and General Diary entries for the relevant period, and compare them with the arrest memo.
- Where footage is missing, ask for an adverse inference under Section 119(g) BSA and for compensation.
For State Counsel and Police Officers
- Maintain the General Diary contemporaneously, issue time-stamped receipts on release, and document any CCTV failure and its report to the Superintendent of Police.
Key Takeaways
- CCTV in police stations must operate 24/7 x 365.
- A CCTV failure does not remove the duty to keep a contemporaneous General Diary record.
- Missing footage without documentation may lead to an adverse inference under Section 119(g) BSA.
- The Court awarded Rs 10,000 compensation for about 24 hours of illegal detention.
Frequently Asked Questions
Record every person brought in, interrogated, arrested or released in the General Diary with times, note the failure, inform the Superintendent of Police, and give a signed time-stamped receipt on release.
Missing footage without proper documentation can attract an adverse inference under Section 119(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
It is binding in Uttar Pradesh and persuasive elsewhere.
Conclusion
The ruling insists that the safeguards around arrest do not depend on technology working: where cameras fail, written records must carry the weight, and any gap will be read against the police.
Practical takeaway: In any custody dispute, request the footage and the General Diary together, and use any mismatch with the arrest memo as the core of the Article 21 argument.