Accused Can't Be Taken To CCTV-Free Areas In Police Stations: Says MP High Court; Bats For Body Cams To Prevent Custodial Violence

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a directive to the Indore Police Commissionerate that accused individuals or complainants must not be taken to areas in police stations that lack CCTV coverage. The bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar further highlighted the importance of body-worn cameras for police personnel, urging their use as a critical tool to prevent cases of alleged custodial violence. Therefore, the bench passed the following guidelines;"1. State Government is directed to ensure that except those areas which cannot be covered under the CCTV camera, like toilets or changing rooms, in all the Police Stations in M.P., an accused or a complainant shall not be taken to such areas of the police station which are not covered under the CCTV cameras. 2. It is also directed that to begin with a small step, all the police personnel in at least top five Police Stations (in registration of crimes) out of the thirty-five odd Police Stations at the Indore Police Commissionerate be provided with the body worn cameras within a period of nine months, and an SOP be also prepared to wear such cameras while on duty along with the uniform. 3. State Government is also directed to provide all the necessary paraphernalia and infrastructure to the Indore Police Commissionerate as required to implement the above directions issued by this Court". The development comes in a petition filed seeking the writ of mandamus to preserve and produce the CCTV footage of Police Station Lasudiya for December 29, 2025, between 1:30 AM and 4:30 AM, along with CCTV footage of Shreenath Restaurant and Jain Restaurant. The petition also sought directions for registration of an FIR and a departmental inquiry against police constables Nagendra and Utkarsh. Additionally, the petition sought compensation for the petitioner for custodial violence and violation of fundamental rights. Per the petitioner's case, he was having tea at Shreenath Restaurant and asked for the bill. However, the shop owner charged double the usual amount, which led to an altercation. Aggrieved, the restaurant owner called the police, who, without any reason, allegedly started assaulting the petitioner and his friends. When the petitioner resisted the assault and attempted to record the incident on his phone, his phone was snatched. Subsequently, 112 was dialled, and the petitioner was taken to the Police Station, where he was brutally beaten. The police officers further deleted the video recordings of the assault and extorted money from him to release him. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was taken into an area of the police station that was not covered by a CCTV camera. The counsel for the State denied all allegations, contending that the petitioner was brought in on allegations of drunk driving and that the allegation of deleted footage from his phone was false, as the forensic lab report substantiates no such claim. The court, while hearing the matter, expressed concerns over the non-installation of CCTV cameras in the police station and also the lack of installation of body cams despite an order raising the same issue on September 19, 2024. The court noted that in that order, the State had filed a reply stating that only 442 body-worn cameras have been distributed to the police stations and also to the traffic police units within the Indore Police Commissionerate. The counsel for the State submitted that out of the 442 cameras, only two cameras have fallen into the share of Lasudiya Police Station and are only worn at the time of traffic violations. The bench opined, "these body worn cameras, which can be proved to be extremely useful for the Police as also for the accused persons, are not being used to any fruitful purposes, and are kept in the police station only for their namesake. It is the instances like these when the importance of such gadgets is realized". The bench noted that in the present case, not a single CCTV footage or any other footage is available to substantiate the petitioner's contention of police brutality. The court also noted that the petitioner was taken into an inner room where no CCV camera was installed. The bench thus held, "non-availability of such visuals of an incident which took place near and also in the police station, is not natural and is enough to draw an adverse inference against the delinquent officers, which also substantiates the narration of events by the petitioner supported by the photographs of the injuries". Therefore, the bench directed the respondents to pay the petitioner a compensation of ₹10,000 for the hardships he was subjected to. Further, they were directed to preserve the CCTV footage of the Police Station. Regarding the use of body-worn cameras, the bench highlighted that there was no SOP provided regarding the use and monitoring of such cameras.The bench noted such conduct to be, "complete ignorance or conscious disregard on the part of the officers concerned in adopting the new...

Accused Can't Be Taken To CCTV-Free Areas In Police Stations: Says MP High Court; Bats For Body Cams To Prevent Custodial Violence

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Accused Can't Be Taken To CCTV-Free Areas In Police Stations: Says MP High Court; Bats For Body Cams To Prevent Custodial Violence

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers