Court presumes unlawful detention due to unavailability of CCTV footage citing technical malfunction; directs state to pay costs and flags SHO's conduct for disciplinary review
In a significant ruling on November 3, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev) allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Petitioner `X' and another, ordering the immediate release of petitioner no. 2 - Afzal Ahmad - who was alleged to have been illegally detained by the police from September 5, 2026, to September 7, 2026.
The case arose from a disturbing chain of events involving petitioner no. 1, a student and daughter of petitioner no. 2, who was allegedly sexually assaulted and victimized through obscene photographs/videos by a local individual, Shahbaz. Following a series of FIRs and counter-complaints lodged by different parties, petitioner no. 2 was forcibly taken from outside the Police Station Nangal by police personnel in civil dress, without a formal arrest at that time. The formal arrest was only recorded two days later.
The petition challenged the legality of this detention, asserting that petitioner no. 2 was held without due process. The Court had earlier directed the State to produce CCTV footage from the police station premises to verify the events of September 5, 2026, to September 7, 2026. However, the State reported that the CCTV system had malfunctioned due to a thunderstorm on September 5, 2026, leading to the loss of all relevant footage.
The Court expressed strong displeasure at the recurring pattern in Uttar Pradesh police stations where CCTV footage is frequently reported as unavailable when called upon by courts, raising serious concerns over police transparency and respect for fundamental rights. It noted that the failure to provide CCTV evidence in such a critical case strongly supports the petitioners' claim of unlawful detention, suggesting deliberate withholding of evidence.
The Court unequivocally held that the police's excuse of CCTV malfunction was unacceptable in the context of alleged illegal detention. Given the circumstances, the Court presumed the detention to be unlawful and ordered the immediate release of petitioner no. 2, provided he was not wanted in any other case.
Further, the Court recorded its displeasure regarding the conduct of Ms. Annu Kumari, SHO of Police Station Nangal, who had deliberately failed to provide the CCTV footage. This adverse remark will be entered into her service record, and the State was urged to reconsider her continuation in the current post.
While the petitioners did not seek compensation, the Court allowed them the liberty to pursue compensation through other legal remedies. The State was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as costs to the petitioners within seven days, failing which the petitioners could revive the writ petition for enforcement.
This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary's vigilance against unlawful detention and police misconduct, emphasizing the crucial role of technological evidence like CCTV footage in safeguarding civil liberties.
Bottom Line:
Illegal detention by police - CCTV footage unavailable due to alleged malfunctioning - Court presumes unlawful detention and orders immediate release of the detainee.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (as referenced in FIRs)
Petitioner 'X' v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3017451
