Police Cannot Cite CCTV Malfunction to Justify Illegal Detention, Rules Allahabad High Court

Police Cannot Cite CCTV Malfunction to Justify Illegal Detention, Rules Allahabad High Court in Petitioner ‘X’ v. State of U.P.

Case: Petitioner ‘X’ and another v. State of U.P. and 4 others
Citation: 2026:AHC:228441-DB
Date of Judgment: 03 November 2026
Court: High Court of Allahabad
Coram: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev
Proceedings: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1538 of 2026

Court Observation

“The situation that exists in the State of Uttar Pradesh relating to civil liberty is shameful, to say the least. The police appear to have a little regard for the fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens, and the infringement of these rights seems to have become a matter of routine for the U.P. Police.”

Summary

The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh Police over alleged unlawful detention and the repeated non-availability of police station CCTV footage, allowing a habeas corpus petition and ordering the immediate release of Afzal Ahmad. The Court held that the excuse of CCTV malfunctioning is not available to the police in a case of unlawful detention: such an averment is itself sufficient to accept that the corpus was unlawfully detained and that the footage was deliberately withheld to obfuscate the truth.

The Court noted that in case after case, whenever CCTV footage is called for, the same report comes back stating that the footage is not available for one reason or another, and held that where footage repeatedly goes missing whenever the court calls for it, the court may presume the footage was against the interest of the station house officer concerned. The illegal detention from 5 September 2026, when Ahmad was picked up, until his formal arrest was shown on 7 September 2026 vitiated the detention, and the State was directed to pay Rs 20,000 as costs within seven days.

Key Holdings

  • The excuse of CCTV malfunctioning is not available to the police in a case of unlawful detention — such an averment is itself sufficient to accept that the corpus was unlawfully detained and the footage deliberately withheld to obfuscate the truth.
  • Where CCTV footage repeatedly goes missing whenever the court calls for it, the court may presume the footage was against the interest of the station house officer concerned.
  • Illegal detention from 5 September 2026 to the formal arrest shown on 7 September 2026 vitiates the detention.

Directions Issued

  • The habeas corpus petition stands allowed; Afzal Ahmad shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
  • The State shall pay Rs 20,000 as costs to the petitioners within seven days, with liberty to the petitioners to revive the matter for compliance in case of default.
  • The Court’s displeasure against Station House Officer Annu Kumari of Nangal police station, Bijnor, who deliberately did not provide the CCTV footage, shall be entered in her service records, and the State shall consider her further continuation on the present post.

Background

Afzal Ahmad’s daughter, a chartered accountancy student, alleged that on 5 September 2026, after both were called to Nangal police station in Bijnor, police and Special Operations Group personnel in civil dress forcibly took her father from outside the station at around 2:30 p.m. in a white Bolero (UP 20 AG 0290), while his formal arrest was shown only on 7 September 2026. The Court had directed production of the CCTV footage from 1 p.m. on 5 September to 10 a.m. on 7 September; the State said it was unavailable, relying on a general diary entry that a thunderstorm had let water seep through the LAN cable and caused a malfunction. The Court rejected the explanation. The wider issue of CCTV failures in Uttar Pradesh police stations is being dealt with separately in another matter (Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1117 of 2026), which is reserved for judgment.

Related Articles

>

Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Tags: , ,