Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court

"In a case where the CCTV footage of the station is not available for the period when the corpus alleges he was illegally detained, and there is no documentation to support the stand of the police that he was released from the station on a particular date and time then, s. 119(illustration [g]) of the BSA... would squarely apply on the police and the court would be justified in presuming that case of the petitioner is correct." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 9, 2026, held that the failure of police officials to maintain functional CCTV surveillance systems in police stations, coupled with a lack of contemporaneous documentation, necessitates the invocation of the presumption that the withheld evidence would be unfavourable to the police.

A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed that when police authorities suppress or fail to produce evidence of a suspect's presence and subsequent release, the court is justified in presuming the allegations of illegal detention to be true.

The petitioners filed a habeas corpus petition alleging unlawful detention at P.S. Gauri Bazar by the then SHO, Dr. Mahendra Kumar. It was contended that Petitioner No. 1 was held for two days, while Petitioners 2 to 4 were detained for ten days without being produced before a Magistrate, following a murder investigation. The police claimed the individuals were merely called for interrogation, while the petitioners alleged systemic abuse and extortion.

The primary question before the court was whether the unexplained dysfunction of CCTV cameras at a police station allows for an adverse inference regarding claims of illegal detention. The court was also called upon to determine the liability of the State and the individual officer for violating the constitutional rights of the detainees and the subsequent mandate for compensatory relief.

Court's Observations on CCTV Mandates

The court underscored that the Supreme Court's mandate in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh regarding CCTV installation implies a requirement for 24/7 continuous operation. Disruptions must be minimal, and any failure must be formally recorded and escalated to superior officers. The court emphasized that CCTV acts as a vital tool to protect police from false allegations while simultaneously preventing extra-judicial methods.

Failure To Record Procedures

The court noted that when electronic surveillance fails, the police are bound by established procedural codes to document the movement of suspects. This includes mandatory entries in the General Diary (GD) for the arrival and departure of any person interrogated. The court suggested that, as a matter of Abundans Cautela (abundant caution), police should obtain receipts or endorsements from suspects or their next of kin upon their release.

Invoking Adverse Presumption

Where such documentation is absent and CCTV footage is conveniently missing, the court held that Section 119(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—which corresponds to the principle that evidence not produced is presumed unfavourable to the withholder—applies. Consequently, the court accepted the petitioners' version of events, finding the police's "oversight" and lack of record-keeping to be a clear instance of executive overreach and violation of liberty.

Failure to Record Evidence

The court observed that even if the CCTV were non-functional, the SHO could have recorded statements under Section 161 CrPC in the case diary or obtained video verification of the petitioners' departure. The total absence of any such record, despite the station's duty to maintain transparency, led the court to conclude that the detention was indeed unlawful.

Directing Compensatory Relief

The bench directed the State to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 each to Petitioners 2 to 4 and Rs. 5,000 to Petitioner No. 1. Crucially, the court ordered the State to recover these amounts from the salary of the responsible officer following an inquiry and directed that the Court’s disapproval of his professional conduct be formally entered into his service record.

"The facts disclosed in the present case reveal that the actions of Dr. Mahendra Kumar betray executive overreach and he has ridden roughshod on the rights of the petitioners."

Date of Decision: 09 September 2026