In a habeas corpus writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking compensation for being unlawfully detained at a police station by the SHO, a Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant ordered compensation for the petitioners and recovery of the same from the SHO after an enquiry.
An FIR was registered under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the complainant alleged that his son was murdered by the accused persons due to pre-existing enmity. The petitioners were not named among the accused persons. However, it was alleged that on the intervening night of 13/14-04-2026, the police unlawfully entered the house of the accused’s sister (petitioner/corpus 2) and took her into custody. At around 1:30 AM, the police took into custody another sister of the accused, who was residing with her three minor children, while her husband stayed abroad.
On 14-04-2026, the police also took into custody corpus 3 along with her minor daughter (corpus 4) aged about 2 and a half years. Petitioners 2 to 4 were never produced before the Magistrate and were released a day before the present petition was filed. Petitioner 1 was detained for two days and Petitioners 2 to 4 were detained for ten days from 13-04-2026 to 23-04-2026.
The SHO submitted that the CCTV surveillance system stopped working on 12-04-2026 and that he availed services of a local mechanic on 14-04-2026 to rectify the same. The Court noted that the SP’s order disclosed that for the period that the DVR was dysfunctional, the SHO did not intimate the superior officers and neither did he take steps to inform the electricity department. The order also mentioned that the SHO should have taken personal interest in the matter to get the electricity restored. It was also noted that the order disclosed that the reduction in the DVR’s storage capacity was never intimated to the superior officers and that the SHO did not make any entry in the Roz Namcha regarding the electrical fault in the police station.
The Court was cognizant that mechanical and electronic devices could fail, but stated that the downtime of such dysfunctionality must be minimal and that there must be a record of steps taken for restoring its functionality. It was stated CCTV systems provide evidence that can protect the police from allegations of excesses and deviations from law and at the same time, also damn their actions if the police resorts to extra judicial methods transgressing the law.
It was stated that when CCTV fails, the police must resort to the old system by which every suspect brought in for interrogation into the station must be documented by recording his presence in the GD. Further, the Court said that in a case where the CCTV footage of the station is not available for the period when the corpus alleges he was illegally detained, and
there is no documentation to support the stand of the police, the court would be justified in presuming that the petitioner’s case is correct in accordance with Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
The Court stated that the facts in the present case disclosed that the SHO’s actions betrayed executive overreach and that he had violated the petitioners’ rights. The SHO was unable to explain why only bits and pieces of the data were recorded in the DVR and the Court found it reasonable to presume that the period during which the camera feed was not recorded, may have been physically deleted to wipe out the evidence. It was said that the SHO could have preserved the statements in the case diary along with the date and time, and that at the time of the release, a certification could have been taken of the person with whom they were released, which was never done.
Hence, the Court held the SHO responsible for detaining petitioners 2 to 4 from 13-04-2026 till 23-04-2026 and directed the State to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- each and Rs. 5000/- to petitioner 1 for the two days that he spent in the unlawful custody. The Court also directed the State to recover this amount from the salary of those responsible, after an enquiry and to ensure that the Court’s displeasure regarding the SHO’s official conduct is recorded in his service book.
Thus, the writ petition was disposed of.
