Finding that three CCTV feeds inside a Chitrakoot police station were deliberately shut off or deleted and that the recorded time of arrest was manipulated, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the arrest of a businessman in a civil sand-mining dispute and laid down directions on CCTV failures in police stations.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has set aside the arrest of Raghvendra Dubey, holding that the police of Police Station Sardhuwa, Chitrakoot, manipulated the timing of his arrest and lodgement, that the footage of three CCTV cameras inside the station was deliberately deleted or not saved, and that the grounds of arrest were not communicated in accordance with law, observing that the facts prima facie strongly suggest that the police acted as recovery agents for the complainant [Raghvendra Dubey and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev allowed the habeas corpus petition on September 23, 2026, directing Dubey’s release forthwith if not wanted in any other case, and awarded him Rs 10,000 as compensation.
Background of the case
The petition was filed by Dubey, proprietor of Ayaninfra Developers, through his wife, Jyotsana Dubey. He was in custody under FIR No. 87 of 2026 dated May 9, 2026, registered initially under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of the IPC for an alleged incident of June 15, 2021, on a complaint by Pradeep Yadav, proprietor of M/s RPS Enterprises. The complainant alleged that Dubey induced him to participate in a five-year sand-mining allotment for about 108.499 hectares in Chitrakoot by promising 19% of the profit, that he managed the operations, incurred expenses of about Rs 1.05 crore and Rs 24.85 lakh and gave Rs 1.07 crore as a contribution to Dubey’s firm, but was paid nothing, removed without notice and threatened.
The Court noted that the case revolves around a prima facie civil transaction and that the informant’s own undisputed case is that it arose from a civil dispute, though it declined to say there was no criminal angle, which is for the appropriate court. Dubey said he was illegally picked up from a barber shop in Asansol on July 12, 2026 and brought to Chitrakoot at the informant’s behest, relying on photographs; the respondents denied this and said he was absconding and was taken into custody on non-bailable warrants.
The CCTV footage and the timeline
The key day was July 13, 2026. Footage was available from only two of the five cameras in the station, one at the entrance and one at the lock-up. The then SHO, Shiv Ashrey, told the Court that the computer operator did not save the feed of the other three. The State’s counsel said Dubey was not placed in the lock-up but in the CCTNS room, whose camera was one of the three not saved, and that he left at 10:19 am.
The entrance camera showed Dubey entering at 9:00 am and leaving at 10:19 am with the investigating officer, Azhar Jamal, in the informant’s vehicle, and being brought back at 8:24 pm. The arrest memo showed his arrest at 3:30 pm, near a flyover in Police Station Rajapur, while the General Diary recorded him placed in the lock-up at 6:41 pm, which the Court held impossible given the footage. It held that he remained in the constructive custody of the police when taken away, and that the plea that he was taken to explore a mediated settlement did not withstand scrutiny.
Findings Against The Chitrakoot Police
The Court rejected as false and mischievous the former SHO’s explanation, noting that a DVR saves feeds on its own, so unsaved feeds mean either a malfunction, a deliberate shutdown, or deliberate deletion, and that no malfunction was pleaded. It held that the feeds were deliberately deleted or deliberately not saved, and that the IT staff could not have done so without explicit orders of the SHO or the investigating officer, because they did not want the Court to see what happened inside the station.
It drew the presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, corresponding to Section 119(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, that withheld evidence would be unfavourable to the person withholding it, and held that there was a strong presumption that the petitioner’s case is correct. The State had said the IT staff were punished by withholding a month’s salary.
Grounds of arrest
On the second aspect, the Court held the grounds of arrest woefully inadequate and not given in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. A reference to “details given in the case diary” did not suffice, so the arrest violated Article 21. It also noted that the arrest memo was witnessed only by police personnel and no independent witness.
Directions on CCTV
Noting repeated cases of police manipulating CCTV inside stations, the Court laid down that once a CCTV system is functional it must work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If it fails, the SHO must make a General Diary entry recording the time and the official to whom the failure was reported in writing, and the Superintendent of Police must be informed first and must ensure minimal downtime and record the action taken. When the system is down, the details of anyone brought in for interrogation or arrest must be entered in the General Diary at once, and the time of release of anyone interrogated and let go must be recorded, with a receipt from the person stating when and in whose company he was handed over.
Failing this, the Court said it would presume the allegations of illegal detention to be correct under Section 119(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Relief
The Court set aside the arrest, directed release forthwith if Dubey is not wanted in any other case, and awarded Rs 10,000 for the 24 hours of illegal custody, to be recovered from the person found responsible after an inquiry and fixation of liability. It observed that the facts prima facie strongly suggest that the police personnel acted as recovery agents on behalf of the complainant. It clarified that its observations shall not prejudice the criminal court or even be taken into account by the trial court, and returned the pen drive with the CCTV footage to the State.
Case Title: Raghvendra Dubey and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Case Number: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1169 of 2026
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: September 23, 2026
Appearance: Senior Advocate Vinay Saran with Advocate Shubham Tripathi for the petitioners; Additional Advocate General M.C. Chaturvedi for the State