The Allahabad High Court has sharply questioned police officials in Deoria over missing CCTV footage from a police station, in a case alleging the unlawful detention of four petitioners. The Court criticised the explanations offered by both the Station House Officer (SHO) and Superintendent of Police (SP) regarding the alleged CCTV system failure, and ordered ₹65,000 in compensation for the petitioners.
The Case at the Centre of This Ruling
A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant was hearing a habeas corpus petition concerning the alleged detention of four people at Gauri Bazar Police Station between April 13 and April 24, 2026, with some petitioners allegedly held for around 10 days. During the hearing, Justice Sreedharan orally described the officials as a "bunch of liars" while questioning the circumstances surrounding the CCTV failure and the absence of recordings for the relevant period, a striking rebuke from the bench directed squarely at the police's own account of events.
Why the CCTV Footage Matters So Much Here
The Court had earlier directed the State to produce CCTV recordings from inside the police station to determine the veracity of the detention allegations. However, at an earlier hearing, the State informed the Court that the CCTV recording system had developed a fault around the time of the alleged detention, a claim the Court subsequently sought to test directly by summoning the Deoria SP and the concerned SHO in person.
The SHO's Account Under Scrutiny
During the latest hearing, the Bench repeatedly pressed the SHO on why recordings were unavailable if the camera system had reportedly been functioning from April 14 onward. The SHO reportedly told the Court the CCTV system had actually developed a fault on April 12, a date that itself raised further questions given the timeline being presented.
The Bench also asked whether a General Diary (GD) entry had been made documenting the repair or failure of the CCTV system, a standard administrative record that would normally accompany any equipment fault of this kind. The SHO reportedly acknowledged that no such entry had been made, a gap the Court's questioning treated as significant.
The SP's Response
The Deoria SP told the Bench he hadn't been informed the CCTV system wasn't functioning. The Court then asked what disciplinary action had actually been taken against the SHO over the lapse. When the SP offered an apology to the Court, Justice Sreedharan reportedly responded pointedly: "Don't apologize to the Court. Apologize to the people."
The Bench also questioned why the SHO hadn't been suspended or terminated if authorities genuinely considered him responsible for the failure. The SP explained the SHO had instead been transferred to the Crime Branch, a response the Court indicated it wasn't satisfied with.
A Broader Question Over ₹46.46 Lakh in CCTV Funding
Beyond this specific case, the High Court also examined the wider issue of CCTV installation and maintenance across police stations in Deoria district. According to the Court's proceedings, the State Government had released ₹46.46 lakh for police station CCTV systems in the district. The Bench questioned why the entire amount had allegedly been released to the contracted agency even though the work was reportedly incomplete, and why that agency hadn't instead been blacklisted, observing that the funds appeared to have been released purely on the basis of an assurance rather than verified completion.
The Bench also noted a timing concern with the district administration's response more broadly: some measures attributed to the SP were dated August 14, after the High Court's own order of August 4, prompting the Court to observe that, on the face of it, action by district authorities may only have been initiated after the petition was filed and the Court had already intervened, rather than proactively beforehand.
The Compensation Order
The Court directed the State Government to pay ₹20,000 each to petitioners 2, 3, and 4, along with ₹5,000 to petitioner 1, calculated based on the respective periods of unlawful detention alleged in the petition, bringing the total compensation to ₹65,000. Notably, the Court directed that this amount be recovered directly from the SHO's own salary, rather than simply drawn from general state funds, placing the financial consequence squarely on the officer the Court held responsible.
FAQs
Q1. What did the Allahabad High Court order in this case?
₹65,000 in total compensation for four petitioners allegedly unlawfully detained at Gauri Bazar Police Station, with the amount ordered to be recovered directly from the SHO's salary.
Q2. Why was the CCTV footage so central to this case?
The Court had directed the State to produce station CCTV recordings to verify the detention allegations, but the State said the system had developed a fault during the relevant period, leaving no footage to independently confirm what happened.
Q3. What discrepancies did the Court find in the police's explanation?
The SHO said the CCTV fault occurred on April 12, but no General Diary entry documenting the failure had been made, and the SP said he was never informed the system wasn't working at all.
Q4. What broader issue did the Court raise about CCTV funding in Deoria?
It questioned why the State had released the full ₹46.46 lakh in CCTV funding to the contracted agency despite reportedly incomplete work, and why that agency hadn't been blacklisted.