The Allahabad High Court has allowed a habeas corpus petition after finding the petitioners’ claim of unlawful detention supported by the State's failure to produce CCTV footage from the police station. The Court directed the immediate release of the detained man, subject to him not being wanted in any other case, and ordered the State to pay ₹20,000 in litigation costs.
The order was passed on November 3, 2026, by the Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev.
Background
The case arose from a dispute involving a family in Bijnor district. Petitioner No. 1, the daughter of the detained man, alleged that her father, Petitioner No. 2, had been unlawfully detained by police personnel on September 5, 2026, although his formal arrest was shown as having taken place on September 7, 2026.
According to the petition, the man was forcibly taken from a vehicle outside Nangal Police Station by persons allegedly belonging to the police or Special Operations Group (SOG), dressed in civilian clothes. His companion, Farman, reportedly contacted UP-112 emergency services after the incident.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking relief against the alleged illegal detention.
During the hearing, the State informed the Bench that the CCTV footage could not be produced because a thunderstorm on September 5 had allegedly caused water to enter the CCTV system through a LAN cable, resulting in its failure. The State relied on a General Diary entry recorded at 1:03 PM that day.
However, the Bench was not satisfied with this explanation. It referred to repeated instances in which police stations across Uttar Pradesh had failed to produce CCTV recordings when directed by the Court.
The judges made strong observations about the condition of civil liberties in the State, stating:
"The situation that exists in the State of Uttar Pradesh relating to the civil liberty is shameful, to say the least. The police appear to have 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."
The Court further observed that the problem of CCTV system failures in Uttar Pradesh was already being examined separately in another habeas corpus petition, which had been reserved for judgment.
Rejecting the explanation of technical failure, the Bench made it clear that such an excuse could not be accepted in matters concerning unlawful detention. It observed:
"The excuse of a CCTV malfunctioning is not available to the police in a case of unlawful detention. Any averment to that effect by the respondents concerned is sufficient for this Court to hold that the contention of the petitioners that the corpus was unlawfully detained is correct and that CCTV footage is deliberately not being provided to the Court in order to obfuscate the truth maliciously."
The High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition and directed that Petitioner No. 2 be released forthwith, provided he was not wanted in any other case.
The Bench also recorded its displeasure over the conduct of Annu Kumari, SHO of Nangal Police Station, observing that the relevant CCTV footage had been deliberately withheld. It directed that the Court's displeasure be entered into her service records and that the State consider her continuation in the present post.
Additionally, the Court fixed litigation costs at ₹20,000, directing the State to pay the amount to the petitioners within seven days. It clarified that the petitioners could separately seek compensation through remedies available under law.
