Is a CCTV malfunction excuse enough to answer a plea of unlawful detention? Allahabad High Court says no in a Bijnor habeas case, calls the civil liberties situation in Uttar Pradesh “shameful” and orders the man’s immediate release.
Allahabad: A Bijnor man is to be set at liberty after the Allahabad High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition and rejected the CCTV malfunction excuse put forward by the Uttar Pradesh Police. The State had said a thunderstorm sent water down a LAN cable and knocked out the cameras at the police station. The Court held that this is no answer when a citizen alleges he was held for two days before his formal arrest was shown [Petitioner ‘X’ & Anr. v. State of U.P. & 4 Ors.].
In an order dated November 3, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev directed that the man be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The Bench also recorded its displeasure against SHO Annu Kumari of Police Station Nangal and directed the State to pay Rs 20,000 in costs within seven days.
The State’s answer: a thunderstorm and a failed CCTV system
The Court had earlier, by an order dated October 13, 2026, directed the State to produce the police station’s CCTV recordings from 1 pm on September 5 to 10 am on September 7, 2026. When the matter was taken up, the State said the footage was not available.
It relied on the affidavit of SHO Annu Kumari, which annexed a general diary entry of 1:03 pm on September 5, 2026. The entry recorded that a thunderstorm had caused water to trickle down the LAN cable into the CCTV system, resulting in the failure of the entire system at the police station.
The Bench was not persuaded, and made sharp remarks on the state of civil liberties in Uttar Pradesh:
“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. In case after case whenever CCTV footages are called for by this Court, in large majority of the cases, it is the same report which comes stating that CCTV footage is not available on account of one reason or other.”
The wider issue of CCTV failures across police stations in the State, the Court noted, is being dealt with in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1117 of 2026, in which judgment has been reserved.
“The excuse of a CCTV malfunctioning is not available”
The Bench then set out what follows when police plead a malfunction in a detention case:
“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 Court held that the formal arrest rested on unlawful detention from September 5 to September 7, 2026. It allowed the petition and ordered the father’s release, if not wanted in any other case. No compensation had been sought, so the petitioners were left free to pursue it through other remedies available in law.
What the petitioners alleged
The petition was filed by the man’s daughter, whose identity is masked in the cause title, along with the man himself as the corpus. According to the petition, the two had been called to Police Station Nangal, District Bijnor, and reached there by car at about 2:30 pm on September 5, 2026. While they were contacting the SHO from the vehicle, a white Bolero entered the premises, four persons came out, surrounded their car and forcibly took the father away.
The petition alleged that he was taken by police and SOG personnel in civil dress. A person accompanying him tried to record the incident on his phone but was stopped, and then called the UP 112 emergency service. His formal arrest was shown only on September 7, 2026, in Crime No. 706 of 2026, an FIR alleging a honey trap. The petition traced that FIR to a series of cross-complaints between the family and another group in the district.
The allegations in that FIR remain to be tested, and the High Court expressed no view on them. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Displeasure against the SHO entered in service records
The Court found that SHO Annu Kumari had deliberately not provided the footage, and presumed that it was against the interest of respondent No. 3 and had therefore been withheld.
“…this Court records its displeasure which shall be entered into her service records and her further continuation on the present post should also be considered by the State.”
The State must pay the Rs 20,000 costs to the petitioners within seven days. If it does not, they may revive the petition for compliance.
Why the order matters
CCTV coverage in police stations exists to make the first hours of custody verifiable. By holding that a claimed malfunction will itself lead the Court to accept a detenue’s version of unlawful detention, the order shifts the cost of missing footage onto the police rather than the citizen. The direction to enter the Court’s displeasure in the SHO’s service record adds personal accountability to that rule.
The Bench has also signalled that a fuller ruling on the failure of CCTV systems across Uttar Pradesh’s police stations is on the way in the reserved Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1117 of 2026, which could set binding norms for the State.
Case Title: Petitioner ‘X’ & Anr. v. State of U.P. & 4 Ors. [Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1538 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Advocate P.K. Singh for the petitioners; Government Advocate for the State
