Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

Directs To Preserve CCTV Footage of Allegations Of Illegal Detention By Police Officers: Madras HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D:07-06-2022

The Madras High Court recently ordered the Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent Of Police, and Inspector of Police of the Sankarankovil Town Police Station in Tenkasi District and the Inspector of Police of the Rajapalam Police Station in Viruthunagar District to preserve the CCTV footages recorded on April 6 and 7 in relation to an allegation of illegal detention against certain police officials.

Justice V. Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench stated as follows: Considering the importance of the CCTV footage to adjudicate the issue in this case, the respondents 1 through 4 are ordered to preserve the CCTV footages recorded on 06.04.2022 and 07.04.2022 at Venkateswara Clinic and Selvam Tea Stall, Kumaran Sweets Store, Anandham Cloth Store, and Aandal Jewelers.

The petitioner's case was that his friend Karthick had borrowed and returned his automobile. Later, the aforementioned Karthick stole the Petitioner's car using a phoney key without her permission. Sub Inspector of Police Selvam subsequently informed her that Karthick had filed a complaint against her and demanded that she hand over the car key. The Petitioner handed the sub-inspector the car keys.

On April 6, 2022, police officers from the Kellarajakularaman Police Station took the petitioner against her will to the Sankarankovil Bus stand, held her in illegal custody, harassed her, and demanded the car. They subsequently left her at the Gandhi Statue in Rajapalayam. The petitioner has requested CCTV footage from these locations because her presence may have been captured by the cameras. However, the shop owners at these locations informed her that CCTV footage would only be provided upon request from police officials.

The petitioner also stated that she communicated with the respondent in an effort to take action against the harassing police officers. However, no action has yet been taken. The petitioner also argued that the videotapes were crucial to proving the case, and she feared that they would be destroyed. Therefore, she petitioned the court for instructions to preserve the permitted footage.

Mahalakshmi

v/s.

The Superintendent of Police and others

Latest Legal News