'CCTV Footage Destructed, Lapses In Arrest' : Calcutta HC Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation For Man Allegedly Implicated 'Falsely’ Under NDPS Act

The Calcutta High Court today ordered the state government to provide Rs. 2 Lakh as compensation, to the family members of an accused (allegedly implicated falsely for offence under the NDPS Act) after finding that certain procedural lapses were committed by the state police while effectuating his arrest. In its order, the Court also noted that the footage of CCTV, installed in the police station where the accused was kept at the relevant point of time and which could have been an essential piece of evidence, was destructed. Terming such compensation to be “a balm on the wound” for the violation of human dignity and for the failure of the police to instil confidence that the investigation was fair, impartial and a quest for the truth, the Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar said compensation was being awarded to the affected parties for various lapses and for the failure of the State to uphold the dignity and personal liberty of an individual, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, opining that if the State becomes a lawbreaker, then the writ court should not hesitate to compensate for the laches and the lapses, the Court also stressed upon the need to remind ourselves that the rights of individuals are the citadel of democracy and that every violation would be an attack on civilized society. The case in brief Essentially, the Petitioner/mother of the accused (named Vishal) booked under the NDPS Act, moved the High Court with a writ petition accusing the police of subjecting her son to atrocities and abuse of power by the police when he was illegally detained in Titagarh Police Station on March 9, 2022. The petitioner contended that her son was picked up from the shop, taken to the police station, detained at the police station for the whole of March 9, 2022, and after that, in the early hours of March 10, 2022, shown to be arrested in connection with the NDPS case. It was specifically submitted in her plea that Vishal was a victim of political vendetta by the ruling dispensation in the state as he had participated in the municipal elections of 2022 as an election agent of his cousin Rakesh Shukla, a candidate backed by the Indian National Congress. Against the backdrop of these allegations, in her plea, the petitioner sought an independent probe into the matter and a court-monitored investigation of the NDPS case and for seizure and preservation of CCTV footage of the Police Station (March 9 and March 10, 2022), when the accused was allegedly under the illegal custody of the police. The allegations primarily revolved around depriving the right to dignity and personal liberty and denying a free and fair investigation. On the other hand, it was the state’s case that on March 9, the accused/alleged victim (Vishal) was arrested by a police officer under Section 151 of CrPC in order to prevent the commission of a cognizable offence as he had threatened a man of consequences if he did not withdraw the case against him (Vishal). However, it was further submitted that he was released on the same day (though denied by the petitioner) upon acceptance of a bail bond as also a PR Bond and both the bonds were furnished simultaneously. It was further stated that on the next day (March 10, 2022) based on a piece of secret information, Vishal was arrested lawfully with 2.5 KG of codeine mixture after following due process of law. Against this backdrop, it was argued by the state’s counsel that the accused could not choose the investigating agency and hence, the prayer of the petitioner for the appointment of an independent investigating agency for the investigation of the NDPS case, should not be allowed. In response to the allegations of the state, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that Vishal had been wrongly incarcerated and had not been released from the police station on March 9, 2022, and hence, he could not have been present with codeine mixture on March 10, 2022, in the wee hours of the morning. Court’s observations At the outset, the Court inquired from the Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore Commissionerate as to whether the video footage of the alleged incidents at the police station on the relevant dates was available. In response to the Court’s query, it was submitted that the CCTVs which were functioning in the Police Station at the relevant point in time had a one-month backup capacity and the video recordings were automatically erased/deleted after a month. The Court found this submission of the Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore Commissionerate to be in violation of the Supreme Court’s order in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh and Ors, reported in (2021), wherein the States and UTs were asked to preserve storage of CCTV camera footage for a period of 18 months or at least one year, as the case may be. The court further noted that there were several discrepancies in...

'CCTV Footage Destructed, Lapses In Arrest' : Calcutta HC Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation For Man Allegedly Implicated 'Falsely’ Under NDPS Act

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags