SHO 'Rode Roughshod' Over Petitioners' Rights: Allahabad High Court Orders ₹65K Compensation Over Illegal Detention Of 4

The Allahabad High Court recently found a Station House Officer (SHO) responsible for the unlawful detention of 4 persons and directed the State to pay them a total compensation of ₹65,000. The Court said that the SHO "rode roughshod" over the petitioners' rights by placing them in illegal detention.

also questioned the SHO over the failure of the police station CCTV system and the absence of CCTV footage in a case.

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant directed payment of ₹20,000 each to Petitioners 2, 3 and 4, who were unlawfully detained for around 10 days and ₹5,000 to Petitioner No. 1, who was detained for 2 days. The Court directed that the compensation be recovered from the salary of those responsible after an inquiry.

The order came in a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention at Gauri Bazar Police Station and concerning the absence of CCTV footage from the police station during the period of the alleged detention.

Case in brief

According to the petition, police had taken Petitioners 2 to 4 into custody on April 14, 2026. They were allegedly never produced before a Magistrate and remained in police custody until their release on April 23.

Petitioner No. 1 separately alleged that he was illegally detained for more than 48 hours and released after ₹25,000 was allegedly extorted from him. The Court ultimately held that he had been unlawfully detained for two days.

The petition was filed on April 24, 2026. The Court subsequently directed production of CCTV recordings from inside the police station to examine the allegations.

The then-SHO, Dr. Mahendra Kumar, told the Court that the CCTV surveillance system had stopped functioning on April 12. He stated that a local mechanic was called on April 14 to rectify the system and that it became operational thereafter.

However, he could not provide the name of the technician who allegedly repaired it. There was also no General Diary entry recording the repair.

The Court noted that while there was a GD entry recording the CCTV failure on April 12, there was no corresponding entry regarding its alleged repair on April 14.

The SHO also did not dispute that the CCTV cameras were functional from April 14 until he left the police station on June 30.

The Superintendent of Police, Deoria, appeared personally before the Court along with the then-SHO. The SP's affidavit disclosed that an inquiry by the Circle Officer had found the SHO guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to ensure that the CCTV system remained functional at all times.

High Court's observations

During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly questioned the police over the missing CCTV footage and the explanation offered for the system's failure.

The Court also questioned the SP regarding the action taken against the SHO after the CCTV lapse was found. The SP informed the Court that Dr. Mahendra Kumar had subsequently been transferred to the Crime Branch.

The oral proceedings also saw the Bench question why there was no GD entry documenting the alleged repair of the CCTV system and why footage was unavailable for the crucial period.

The Court then invoked Section 119, Illustration (g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which provides that evidence that could be and is not produced may be presumed to be unfavourable to the person withholding it.

Since the CCTV footage for the relevant period was unavailable and there was no documentation supporting the police claim regarding the petitioners' release, the Court held that the provision applied and that it was justified in presuming the petitioners' version to be correct.

The order records that the CCTV cameras were connected to the DVR and that the DVR was continuously recording events inside the police station.

The Court noted that Dr. Mahendra Kumar was unable to explain why only "bits and pieces" of data were available.

It further observed that there was no assertion that the cameras themselves were dysfunctional during all the periods for which footage was unavailable.

The Court therefore observed:

"...it would not be unreasonable to presume that the period during which the camera feed was not recorded, may also have been physically deleted in order to wipe out the evidence of the proceedings in the Thana during that relevant period of time".

The Court further stated as to what police should do when the CCTV system fails. It said that, in such circumstances, the police must revert to the "old system" of documenting every person brought to the police station for interrogation through General Diary entries recording the time of arrival and departure.

The Court further advised the police to obtain a receipt from the person called for interrogation, or their next of kin, recording that the person was free to leave the police station, along with an endorsement specifying the date and time of release. In the case of an arrested person, the Court noted, the memo of arrest would adequately record the arrest.

The bench said that in the present case, the Statements could have been recorded in the case diary with the relevant date and time. If the petitioners had been released as claimed by the police, their departure could also have been documented through certification, videography or an endorsement by their next of kin.

"None of this has been done", the Court observed.

Considering the material before it, the Court held that Petitioners 2 to 4 had been unlawfully detained from April 13 to April 23, while Petitioner No. 1 had been unlawfully detained for two days.

The finding followed the Court's conclusion that, in the absence of the CCTV footage and contemporaneous documentation of the alleged releases, the adverse inference under Section 119 Illustration (g) of the BSA was attracted.

The Court made strong observations regarding the conduct of the then-SHO, stating "...the actions of Dr. Mahendra Kumar betray executive overreach and he has ridden roughshod on the rights of the petitioners".

The Court directed the State to pay:

• ₹20,000 each to Petitioners 2, 3 and 4; and

• ₹5,000 to Petitioner No. 1.

The total compensation is therefore ₹65,000.

The amount is to be recovered from the salary of those responsible after an inquiry and fixation of liability. The Court also directed that its displeasure regarding the SHO's official conduct be recorded in his service book.

The Court, however, did not direct action against the SP or Circle Officer.

It noted that the SP had taken charge on April 12, 2026, and that the CCTV-related problems had not been escalated to either the Circle Officer or the SP for action at their level.

In those circumstances, the Court held that it was not necessary to direct any action against him. The habeas corpus petition was accordingly disposed of.

Counsel for Petitioner(s): Archit Kumar Srivastava, Preete Chaudhary