The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Station House Officer (SHO) of a Police Station in District Deoria and the concerned Superintendent of Police (SP), questioning them over the failure of the police station CCTV system and the absence of CCTV footage in a case concerning the illegal detention of 4 petitioners for 10 days.

During the hearing, a bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant expressed its disappointment with police officials over their explanations regarding the CCTV cameras, the alleged breakdown of the system, and the missing recordings for the period of the alleged detention (13 April - 23 April, 2026).

At one point, Justice Sreedharan orally referred to the officials as "Bunch of Liars" while questioning the SHO about the circumstances under which the CCTV system allegedly stopped functioning and was subsequently repaired.

The Court also directed the State Government to pay Rs. 20,000/- each to petitioners 2, 3 and 4, and Rs. 5,000/- to petitioner no. 1 for their unlawful detention for different periods. The total compensation of Rs. 65,000/- shall be recovered from the salary of the SHO, the Court directed.

Background of the case

For context, the bench was hearing a habeas corpus petition alleging that the 4 petitioners were unlawfully detained at the Gauri Bazar Police Station in District Deoria, with some allegedly held for around 10 days and others for shorter periods between April 13 and April 24, 2026.

Earlier, the Court had directed production of the CCTV recordings from inside the police station specifically “to ascertain the veracity of the averments made in the petition.”

However, on September 2, the State claimed that there had been a fault in the CCTV recording system in the days leading up to the alleged incident. Pursuant to this submission, the SP Deoria and the SHO concerned were summoned personally by the Court.

What happened today in the Court?

During today's hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned the SHO over the missing CCTV footage. The Bench asked:

"If the camera was working from 14th April, where is the recording? You were the SHO for 2 months. Where is the recording?"

The SHO reportedly stated that the CCTV system had developed a fault on April 12, 2026. The Court also questioned the SHO about whether any General Diary (GD) entry had been made regarding the repair of the CCTV system. The SHO said there was no such GD entry.

The SP, meanwhile, stated that he had not been informed that the CCTV system was not functioning.

The Court also questioned the SP regarding the action taken against the SHO for the CCTV lapses. When the SP apologized to the Court, Justice Sreedharan told him:

"Don't apologize to the Court. Apologize to the people".

The Bench questioned the SP about the action taken against the SHO, including whether he had been suspended or his service terminated. Justice Sreedharan orally remarked thus:

"Did you suspend him, terminate him? An SHO of a thana who cannot make a GD inquiry must be terminated. He is not fit to be a constable".

The Bench further questioned the SP as to why, after allegedly finding the SHO guilty, no punishment had been imposed on him. The SP stated that the SHO had been sent to the Crime Branch. The Court was, however, not satisfied with this action.

The Court's concerns regarding the police version in this matter had already been recorded in its September 2 order.

The Court had also noted that the affidavit referred to the Supreme Court's mandate requiring CCTV coverage at police stations and stated that the State Government had released Rs. 46,46,000 for police stations in Deoria district. However, the affidavit did not disclose the date on which the amount was released.

The Court termed the date of release "essential and vital" and noted that the further actions attributed to the SP were dated August 14, 2026, after the High Court's August 4 order. The Bench observed:

"Prima facie, it appears that the district authorities have initiated action only as a response to the petition being filed before this Court and the order dated 04.08.2026."

The Court had consequently directed the SP to remain personally present to explain what independent action had been taken before August 4.

Today, the Bench also questioned the authorities regarding the payment made to the agency responsible for the CCTV system. The Court questioned why the entire amount had been released despite the work allegedly not having been completed. It remarked thus:

"Instead of blacklisting them, you released the entire fund…On the basis of assurance, you released the entire amount".

The written order records that Rs. 46.46 lakh has been released for police stations in Deoria district.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 686