Court criticizes police for CCTV manipulation and failure to communicate arrest grounds, orders Rs. 10,000 compensation for unlawful custody.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the arrest of Raghvendra Dubey, a petitioner involved in a dispute over a sand mining business arrangement, citing illegal detention and manipulation of evidence by the police. The court, presided over by Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev, ordered Dubey's immediate release and awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the 24-hour unlawful detention.
The case emerged from a civil dispute between Dubey, proprietor of Ayaninfra Developers Firm, and Pradeep Yadav of M/s RPS Enterprises. Yadav accused Dubey of failing to honor a profit-sharing agreement related to a sand mining project, leading to criminal charges including breach of trust and cheating. However, the High Court found that the police's handling of the arrest was fraught with irregularities.
A critical element of the court's decision was the manipulation and non-preservation of CCTV footage within the police station. The footage from only two out of five cameras was available, and the court rejected the police explanation that the footage was not saved due to oversight by the computer operator. The court inferred deliberate suppression of evidence to hide what transpired inside the police station, drawing an adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act and Section 119(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
The court further criticized the police for not adequately communicating the grounds of Dubey's arrest, as the arrest memo merely referenced "details given in the case diary" without specific information. This was deemed non-compliant with Supreme Court directives on arrest procedures, violating Dubey's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In response to these findings, the court set aside the arrest, directing Dubey's release and awarding compensation for the illegal detention. The state was granted liberty to recover this amount from the responsible officers after a due inquiry.
The judgment also emphasized the importance of functional CCTV systems in police stations, underscoring the need for meticulous documentation and accountability in cases of surveillance failure. The court's ruling serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies on adhering to legal protocols and respecting citizens' rights.
Bottom Line :
Habeas corpus arising out of arrest in a dispute having prima facie civil flavour - Manipulation/non-preservation of CCTV footage inside police station and defective arrest memo - Adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act / Section 119(g) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam can be drawn against police - Arrest set aside for non-communication of proper grounds of arrest and compensation awarded for illegal detention.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India Article 21, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 Section 119(g), Evidence Act 1872 Section 114(g).
Raghvendra Dubey v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989440
