Where CCTV footage for the period of alleged detention is missing and the police have no records to show when people were let go, the court is justified in presuming the petitioners’ case is correct, the Allahabad High Court has held, awarding compensation for illegal detention at a Deoria police station and ordering recovery from the salary of those responsible.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has awarded compensation to four members of a family who were unlawfully detained at Gauri Bazar police station in Deoria, holding the then Station House Officer, Dr. Mahendra Kumar, responsible and directing the State to recover the amount from the salary of those responsible after an inquiry [Mahendra Gaur and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant passed the order on September 9, 2026 in a habeas corpus writ petition filed for compensation. It awarded Rs 20,000 each to petitioner nos. 2 to 4, detained for ten days, and Rs 5,000 to petitioner no. 1, detained for two days.
Background of the case
The petitioners said that an FIR, Crime No. 152 of 2026, under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was registered at Gauri Bazar police station over an alleged murder, naming other persons as accused. They alleged that on the night of April 13-14, 2026 the police entered the house of petitioner no. 2, a sister of one of the accused, and took her into custody without following the procedure established by law. On April 14 the police also took into custody Nandini Gaur, petitioner no. 3, along with her minor daughter, aged about two and a half years, petitioner no. 4. Petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were never produced before a Magistrate, they said, and were released on April 23, 2026, a day before the petition was filed on April 24.
Petitioner no. 1, Mahendra Gaur, alleged that he was illegally detained for more than 48 hours from April 18 and beaten, and released on April 20 after Rs 25,000 was extorted from him. They also alleged that when family members approached the SHO for relief, they were abused and threatened. The State’s counsel submitted that the petitioners were only called to the police station for interrogation in connection with the accused and then released.
The CCTV inquiry
The Superintendent of Police, Deoria, Abijith R. Shankar, appeared in person with the then SHO and filed an affidavit of compliance. The SHO told the Court that the CCTV system stopped working on April 12, 2026 and that he had it repaired by a local mechanic on April 14, but he could not name the mechanic, made no General Diary entry about the repair, and did not deny that the cameras worked from April 14 until he left for a new posting on June 30, 2026.
The SP’s affidavit confirmed an inquiry by the Circle Officer, Barhaj, Rajesh Chaturvedi, which held the SHO guilty of dereliction of duty in not ensuring that the CCTV system was functional at all times. The Court recorded that, according to the SP’s order, footage was available only for limited periods on April 12, none for the whole of April 13, and only for a few hours on April 14, 15 and 16. The order also noted that the SHO did not inform his superiors of the DVR’s non-functioning or of the reduction in its storage capacity, and made no Roz Namcha entry about the electrical fault. The report, the Court noted, was silent on whether the failure was deliberate or due to wear and tear.
The Court’s reasoning
Referring to the Supreme Court’s direction in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh on installing CCTV cameras in police stations, the Bench said installation implies continuous operation, with minimal downtime, a record of the steps taken to restore the system, and escalation to superiors where the SHO cannot fix it. It said CCTV both protects the police from allegations of excess and is evidence against them where they resort to extra-judicial methods. Where CCTV fails, it said, the police must fall back on General Diary entries of the time a suspect enters and leaves the station, and are well advised to take a receipt from the person or next of kin.
Where footage for the period of alleged detention is unavailable and there is no documentation of release, the Court held that the presumption in Illustration (g) to Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, that withheld evidence would be unfavourable to the person withholding it, applies squarely against the police, and it could presume that the petitioners’ case is correct. It added that the SHO could not explain why only bits of the data were recorded, and that it would not be unreasonable to presume that the unrecorded periods may have been physically deleted to wipe out evidence. He could also have recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC in the case diary, and videographed their departure with an endorsement from the next of kin, but did none of this. It held that the facts show executive overreach:
“…has ridden roughshod on the rights of the petitioners.”
The SHO had sought pardon, saying that in eight years of service he had no adverse remark, and the State’s counsel pleaded for mercy, saying the violation was incidental and not intentional. The Court observed that the CCTV system conveniently stopped functioning on April 12 and remained dysfunctional throughout the period the petitioners were in the lockup.
Directions
The Court held the SHO responsible for detaining petitioner nos. 2 to 4 from April 13 to April 23, 2026, and directed the State to pay Rs 20,000 to each of them and Rs 5,000 to petitioner no. 1. The State must recover the amount from the salary of those responsible after an inquiry, and ensure that the Court’s displeasure at his official conduct is recorded in his service book. It found no need to direct action against the Superintendent of Police, who took charge on April 12, or the Circle Officer, since the problems were never escalated to them, and disposed of the petition.
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
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: September 9, 2026
Appearance: Advocates Archit Kumar Srivastava and Preete Chaudhary for the petitioners; Government Advocate for the respondents