The Allahabad High Court has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay compensation to four petitioners after holding that they were unlawfully kept in police custody at Gauri Bazar Police Station, Deoria, without being produced before a Magistrate. A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant also directed recovery of the compensation amount from those responsible after an inquiry.
Background
The petition was filed by Mahendra Gaur and three others, who alleged that they had been taken into custody in connection with an investigation concerning Crime No. 152 of 2026. According to the petition, petitioner no.1 was kept at the police station for two days, while petitioner nos.2 to 4 remained there from April 13 to April 23, 2026.
The Court noted that petitioner nos.2 to 4 were never produced before a Magistrate. The police maintained that the petitioners had merely been called to the station for interrogation and were subsequently released. However, the Court found that there was no adequate documentary material establishing when they had entered or left the police station.
A significant issue before the Court was the functioning of the police station's CCTV system. The then SHO, Dr. Mahendra Kumar, stated that the system had stopped functioning on April 12 and was repaired on April 14 by a local mechanic whose identity was not recorded.
The Court also noted that CCTV footage for several relevant periods was unavailable. The police inquiry had found the SHO responsible for dereliction of duty in failing to ensure that the CCTV system remained functional.
The Bench explained the importance of continuous CCTV surveillance in police stations:
"The installation of those cameras it goes without saying also means their continuous operation 24x7x365 without any disruption and in the event of any disruption, the down time be minimal. The Court is cognizant that mechanical and electronic devices can fail, however, the downtime of such dis-functionality must be minimal and there must be a record of steps taken for restoring its functionality by the S.H.O. of the Thana concerned and if he is unable to do at his level, the problem or the issue must be escalated to the immediate superiors, whose duty thereafter it would be to ensure that the full functionality of the CCTV system is restored."
The Court observed that where CCTV footage was unavailable during the alleged period of detention and there was no supporting documentation showing the petitioners' release, the evidentiary principle under Section 119, Illustration (g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam could apply.
The Bench further noted that the SHO could have maintained case-diary records, obtained documentation at the time of release, or otherwise created evidence showing that the petitioners had left the police station voluntarily. None of these steps had been taken.
The High Court held respondent no.3 responsible for the detention of petitioner nos.2 to 4 from April 13 to April 23, 2026. It directed the State to pay Rs. 20,000 each to petitioner nos.2 to 4 and Rs. 5,000 to petitioner no.1 for his two days in unlawful custody.
The Court further directed that the amount be recovered from the salaries of those responsible after an inquiry and that its displeasure concerning the official conduct be recorded in the concerned service book.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Mahendra Gaur And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Number: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 506 of 2026
Judge: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant
Decision Date: September 9, 2026
