Case at a Glance
A daughter alleged that her father was picked up by police in civil dress on 05.09.2026, but his arrest was shown only on 07.09.2026. When the High Court asked for the police station’s CCTV footage for that period, the State said a thunderstorm had damaged the system. A Division Bench held that “the excuse of a CCTV malfunctioning is not available to the police in a case of unlawful detention,” accepted the claim of unlawful detention, and ordered his release. It directed the State to pay ₹20,000 as costs and ordered that its displeasure be entered in the SHO’s service record.
The petitioners — a chartered accountancy student and her father (the corpus) — were involved in an earlier dispute with a private individual, which had led to cross-FIRs in 2026. According to the petition, on 05.09.2026 the family went to a police station on being called by the police, and the father was taken from their car by men said to be police or SOG personnel in civil dress. A companion who tried to record the incident was stopped and then called the UP 112 emergency service. The police later showed the father’s formal arrest on 07.09.2026 in a case lodged by a third person alleging a ‘honey trap’.
On 13.10.2026 the High Court directed the State to call for the police station’s CCTV recordings from 1:00 pm on 05.09.2026 to 10:00 am on 07.09.2026. The State said the footage was unavailable. The SHO’s affidavit relied on a general diary entry of 05.09.2026, stating that during a thunderstorm water entered the LAN cable of the CCTV system, causing the whole system to fail.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the police defeat a claim of illegal detention before arrest by saying that the police station’s CCTV cameras were not working at the relevant time?
Missing Footage Counts Against the Police
The Bench rejected the explanation outright. It held: “The excuse of a CCTV malfunctioning is not available to the police in a case of unlawful detention.” It added that “any averment to that effect by the respondents concerned is sufficient for this Court to hold that the contention of the petitioners that the corpus was unlawfully detained is correct.” The Court inferred that the footage was being withheld because it would have gone against the police, and it treated the failure to produce it as supporting the petitioners’ version.
The Court made strong general observations on policing in the State, saying that “the police appear to have little regard for the fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens” and that “the situation that exists in the State of Uttar Pradesh relating to the civil liberty is shameful, to say the least.” Since the formal arrest of 07.09.2026 followed an unlawful detention from 05.09.2026, the petition was allowed. The judgment cites no precedents, but notes that a separate habeas corpus petition (No. 1117 of 2026), reserved for judgment, would deal with the wider failure of CCTV systems in Uttar Pradesh.
What the Court Actually Held
- A claim that police station CCTV was malfunctioning is not an acceptable answer to an allegation of unlawful detention; such an averment is enough for the Court to accept that the person was unlawfully detained.
- The corpus was held to have been unlawfully detained from 05.09.2026 before his arrest was shown on 07.09.2026, and was ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
- The Court recorded its displeasure with the SHO for withholding the footage, directed that it be entered in her service record, and said the State should consider whether she should continue in her present post.
- The State was directed to pay ₹20,000 as costs to the petitioners within seven days; compensation was not claimed, but the petitioners were left free to seek it in other proceedings.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Police station CCTV is meant to be a safeguard against custodial abuse; this ruling stops ‘technical failure’ from becoming a shield for illegal detention.
- It shifts the consequences of missing footage onto the police, who control the system, rather than the detained person.
- Families of persons picked up without formal arrest get a clear route: seek the footage through a habeas corpus petition and rely on non-production.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families of Detained Persons
- If a relative is picked up without arrest papers, move a habeas corpus petition quickly and ask the court to secure CCTV footage of the police station.
- Record the time of pick-up, call 112 or other emergency numbers, and keep witnesses’ details, as was done in this case.
For Counsel
- Seek a specific direction for CCTV footage covering the period between alleged pick-up and shown arrest.
- Where the State pleads malfunction, rely on this ruling to argue that the unlawful detention claim should be accepted.
- Remember that compensation must be specifically prayed for; here it was not, so the Court left it open.
Key Takeaways
- CCTV malfunction is no defence to an illegal detention claim.
- Non-production of footage was held sufficient to accept unlawful detention.
- Corpus released; ₹20,000 costs on the State within seven days.
- Displeasure entered in the SHO’s service record.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if police say the CCTV was not working when someone was detained?
In this case the Allahabad High Court held that such an excuse is not available to the police in an unlawful detention case, and that the averment itself was sufficient to accept the petitioners’ claim of unlawful detention.
What relief did the court give?
It allowed the habeas corpus petition, ordered the release of the detained man if not wanted in any other case, directed the State to pay ₹20,000 as costs within seven days, and ordered an adverse entry in the SHO’s service record.
Was compensation awarded for the illegal detention?
No. The petitioners had not prayed for compensation, so the Court left them free to pursue it through other legal remedies.
Conclusion
The Division Bench refused to let a convenient technical explanation defeat the purpose of CCTV cameras in police stations. By drawing an inference against the police when footage is not produced, and by fixing personal accountability on the SHO, the Court has made non-production of footage a serious risk for the police rather than a safe way out.
Practical takeaway: In any habeas corpus or illegal detention case, ask the court early for the police station CCTV footage; if the police claim it is unavailable, rely on this ruling to have the unlawful detention accepted.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com