Allahabad HC – Missing CCTV Footage and Absence of Re
Post of the Bar Bulletin and the Judgment dated 9.9.2026 of the High Court of Allahabad in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.506 of 2026 of Mahendra Gaur and 3 others Vs. State of U.P> and 2 others
Habeas Corpus WP for Compensation for Unlawful Detention
The petitioners filed the petition for compensation for unlawful detention by SHO of Police Station, Gauri Bazar, for two and ten days, respectively.
According to the petitioners, an F.I.R. being Crime No. 152 of 2026 was registered at P.S Gauri Bazar disclosing offence under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of BNS. The complainant is Dhari Yadav who alleged that his son Pappu Yadav was murdered due to pre-existing enmity by the named accused persons, who are Pancham Gaur, Ranjeet Gaur, Mulayam Gaur, Rahul Gaur, Naunath Gaur and Malti Devi. They are not the petitioners herein. However, it is alleged that the police on the intervening night of 13/14.04.2026, unlawfully entered the house of the petitioner/corpus No.2, who is the sister of the accused Pancham Gaur and illegally took her into custody without following the procedure established by law.
In paragraph 14, the petitioners have averred that the family members of the petitioners/corpus had approached the In-charge of the Police Station Gauri Bazar, who has been named in the petition as Dr. Mahendra Kumar and it is alleged that instead of providing them relief, the family members were abused, threatened and misbehaved with. Further, it is averred that on 18.04.2026, the petitioner no.1 himself was illegally detained for more than 48 hours by the police, brutally beaten and later released after extorting Rs. 25,000/- on 20.04.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that petitioner no.1-Mahendra Gaur was released after two days of unlawful incarceration in the police station. However, petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were released only on 23.04.2026 after being unlawfully held for almost ten days and as as result of filing of the writ of habeas corpus.
Where, the CCTV system 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 which includes the date and time at which the person enters the station nd thereafter, there must be a GD entry relating to the date and time at which the person leaves the station. Abundans Cautela, the police is well advised to take a receipt from the person so called in for interrogation or his next of kin stating that the person is at liberty to leave the station and an endorsement by the person that he is at liberty to move out of the station giving the date and time at which he has been set free. As regards a person who is arrested in an offence, his memo of arrest would adequately disclose his arrest. 15. 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 that he was released from the station on a particular date and time then, s. 119(illustration [g]) of the BSA which reads “evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it” would squarely apply on the police and the court would be justified in presuming that case of the petitioner is correct. Thus, in the present case, this Court reasonably infers are correct that the petitioner no.1 was unlawfully kept in prison for two days and petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were kept in prison for ten days.
Though, Dr. Mahendra Kumar stated before this Court that he had got the system repaired from a local mechanic and the system was functional from 14.04.2026 onwards, the report of the Circle Officer, which has been endorsed by the worthy Superintendent of Police, damns the then S.H.O. Dr. Mahendra Kumar. The dates and times during which the CCTV was malfunctioning, as so stated in the affidavit of the worthy Superintendent of Police takes note of the availability of certain video footage within the station covering a limited duration only. The worthy Superintendent of Police has informed the Court that the word “uploading” used in the report of the Circle Officer and endorsed in his order, is actually a HABC No. 506 of 2026 8 clerical/typographical error as the data was not being uploaded either by way of LAN to a server or through Wi-fi to a cloud, but the cameras were directly connected to the DVR by cable and therefore, the DVR was continuously “recording” the events inside the station.
