Strongly criticising Uttar Pradesh Police over unlawful detention and repeated instances of non-availability of CCTV footage, the Allahabad high court has said that the civil liberties situation in the state is shameful and that police have little regard for citizens’ rights.
The court also held that the police could not use the excuse of CCTV malfunctioning in a case of alleged unlawful detention. The petitioner’s daughter alleged that police personnel and SOG officials in civvies forcibly took her father away from outside Bijnor’s Nagal police station where both had gone after police called them regarding a case lodged against Ahmad alleging honey trap. a car entered the premises near the police station gate While they were in their vehicle and had contacted the SHO. Four people allegedly came out of the vehicle, surrounded their car and forcibly took Ahmad away.
The petitioner claimed that he was taken into custody by Bijnor Police on September 5, 2026, but his formal arrest was shown only on September 7. They reached the police station at around 2:30 PM on September 5, according to the petition. To ascertain the veracity of the allegations, the high court had earlier directed the state to produce CCTV recordings of the police station from September 5 (from 1 PM) until September 7 (till 10 AM). The state relied on a general diary entry dated September 5, which stated that a thunderstorm occurred and water trickled down the rain cable into the CCTV system, causing it to malfunction and fail.
The court said the police appear to have little regard for fundamental rights, adding that infringing these rights seems routine for the UP police. However, when the matter was taken up, the state informed the court that the CCTV footage for the said period was unavailable.
With this observation, a division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev in its November 3 order allowed a habeas corpus writ petition and directed that the petitioner—Afzal Ahmad of Bijnor— be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. The court also directed the state to pay ₹ 20,000 as costs to him within seven days.
