Hotels Must Properly Verify Guest IDs, Maintain CCTVs To Prevent Misuse Of Premises For Crimes Against Women, Children: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed authorities in Haryana to examine whether hotels, guest houses and similar establishments are properly verifying the identity documents of guests and maintaining functional CCTV systems, while observing that such safeguards are essential to prevent misuse of premises for offences against women and children.

Justice Neerja K. Kalson said, " Hotels and guest houses cannot be permitted to function in a mechanical manner by allotting rooms without proper verification of identity and age of occupants. Such lapses not only compromise lawful safeguards, but also seriously obstruct investigation in offences involving women and minors. In several cases, the investigating agencies are later confronted with incomplete records, non-functional CCTV systems or absence of preserved footage. The process of verification cannot be reduced to a mere formality as this is not only an essential safeguard intended to maintain lawful records, but also to prevent misuse of such premises for commission of offences against women and children."

The Court emphasized that such obligations are not merely procedural but constitute essential preventive safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly women and minors, from exploitation and abuse. It underscored that institutional vigilance and strict compliance with verification norms are indispensable.

Hence, it directed the Director General of Police, Haryana along with the Commissioner of Police, Faridahad and the District Magistrate, Faridabad to examine the compliance mechanism being followed by hotels, guest houses and similar establishments regarding verification of identity documents of occupants. The authorities shall also ensure that CCTV cameras installed in such premises remain functional and effectively cover entry points, reception areas and passages leading towards rooms, in accordance with applicable norms and privacy safeguards.

"It shall further be ensured that CCTV recordings are preserved for a minimum period of one month so that the same remain available whenever required during investigation or for any other purpose. The responsibility cast upon such establishments is not merely procedural in nature, but form an important component of preventive safeguards intended to protect vulnerable individuals from exploitation and abuse," it added.

The Court opined that "institutional vigilance and strict adherence to verification protocols are indispensable to preserve safety, particularly in matters involving women and minors."

The directions came while dismissing seeking regular bail in FIR, under provisions of the BNS and Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

The petitioner, has been in custody since July 28, 2025. The prosecution alleged that he facilitated the stay of a minor girl (aged about 15 years) and a co-accused at an OYO hotel by arranging a room using another girl's identity proof.

The State and the complainant opposed the bail plea, submitting that the petitioner was not a mere bystander but had actively assisted in enabling the commission of the alleged offence. It was further pointed out that his role was reflected in the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix, disclosure statement of the co-accused, and CCTV footage of the hotel.

The Court observed that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature, particularly in light of the age of the prosecutrix. It noted that the role attributed to the petitioner indicated active facilitation rather than passive presence.

Rejecting the contention that prolonged custody and delay in trial warranted bail, the Court held that the gravity of the allegations outweighed such considerations at this stage.

“Merely because charges have been framed and prosecution evidence has not commenced cannot outweigh the seriousness of the allegations in the peculiar facts of the case,” the Court observed.

Finding no ground for grant of regular bail, the Court dismissed the petition. However, it directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

A copy of the order was also directed to be forwarded to the concerned authorities for compliance with the directions issued regarding hotel verification and surveillance mechanisms.

Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunny Namdev, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2-complainant.

Title: XXXX v. State of Haryana and anr.