Punjab and Haryana High Court Criticizes Police Over Non-Preservation of CCTV Evidence in NDPS Case

Deliberate non-compliance with orders to preserve CCTV footage undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in the justice system: Punjab and Haryana High Court strongly rebuked the Punjab Police for failing to preserve crucial CCTV footage in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The footage was ordered to be retained by a Special Court in Kapurthala to verify claims of wrongful detention and abuse. While granting interim bail to the petitioners, Sheelo and Mangat Ram, the Court also directed the Director General of Police (DGP) Punjab to file a comprehensive affidavit on compliance with CCTV monitoring guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.

The petitioners were arrested on June 20, 2022, for alleged possession of Alprazolam, a banned psychotropic substance. They contended that the recovery was fabricated, accusing police officers of implicating them after illegally detaining them at Sultanpur Lodhi Police Station. To substantiate their claims, they sought the preservation of CCTV footage from the station’s cameras for the period between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on the day of their detention.

Despite an order from the Special Court directing the preservation of the footage, the police failed to secure the data, citing technical limitations of the recording system. The footage was not available when the petitioners challenged their arrest and sought bail.

The Court was unequivocal in its criticism of the police’s conduct. Justice N.S. Shekhawat noted:

“Despite the clear and specific directions from the Special Court, the SHO of Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi failed to preserve the CCTV footage. Such deliberate non-compliance not only violates judicial orders but also infringes upon the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.”

The Court rejected the police’s justification that the CCTV system could only retain footage for 13 days, labeling the explanation as evasive. Justice Shekhawat observed:

“The State's claim that data could not be retrieved due to the technical limitations of the DVR system is untenable. The order to preserve the footage was issued well within the retention period. The failure to act promptly and comply with judicial instructions constitutes a serious lapse.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s mandate for installing and maintaining functional CCTV systems in police stations, the High Court underscored the importance of monitoring for transparency and accountability. Justice Shekhawat stated:

“The directives in Paramvir Singh Saini aim to ensure that fundamental rights are protected through reliable surveillance mechanisms. Non-compliance with these directives not only undermines judicial processes but also erodes public trust in law enforcement.”

Granting interim bail to the petitioners, the Court emphasized the significance of the missing CCTV footage as potentially exculpatory evidence. Justice Shekhawat remarked:

“The deliberate failure to preserve evidence despite judicial orders casts serious doubts on the prosecution’s case. The petitioners are entitled to bail, considering the lapses in the investigation.”

The Court directed the DGP Punjab to file an affidavit addressing the following:

Compliance with the Supreme Court’s CCTV directives across all police stations.

Availability and functionality of recording systems with a retention period of at least 18 months.

Steps taken to prevent similar lapses in the future.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies of their obligations to uphold judicial directives and ensure transparency in criminal investigations. It underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding procedural fairness, particularly in cases where liberty is at stake.

Date of Decision: November 14, 2024