Prayagraj (UP), Sep 9 The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday expressed strong displeasure with the Station House Officer (SHO) of Gauri Bazar police station in Deoria and the district’s Superintendent of Police over the failure of the police station’s CCTV system and absence of footage in a case involving the alleged unlawful detention of four people for around 10 days.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Divesh Chandra Samant directed the state government to pay compensation of Rs 20,000 each to petitioners 2, 3 and 4 and Rs 5,000 to petitioner 1 for their unlawful detention.
The total compensation of Rs 65,000 is to be recovered from the SHO’s salary, the court directed.
The court expressed displeasure over the explanations given by the police officials regarding the CCTV cameras, the alleged breakdown of the system and the absence of recordings for the period of the alleged detention from April 13 to April 23, 2026.
The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition alleging that the four petitioners were unlawfully detained at Gauri Bazar police station in Deoria for around 10 days.
Earlier, the court had directed the state to produce CCTV recordings from inside the police station to “ascertain the veracity of the averments made in the petition”.
On September 2, the state claimed that the CCTV recording system had developed a fault in the days leading up to the alleged incident. The court subsequently summoned the Deoria SP and the SHO concerned to appear personally.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the court questioned the SHO about the missing CCTV footage. The SHO said the system had developed a fault on April 12, 2026.
The court also asked whether a General Diary (GD) entry had been made regarding the repair of the CCTV system. The SHO said there was no such entry.
The SP said he had not been informed that the CCTV system was not functioning.
The bench questioned the SP about the action taken against the SHO and why no punishment had been imposed despite allegedly finding him guilty.
The SP said the SHO had been transferred to the Crime Branch. The court, however, was not satisfied with the action.
