The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh Police over alleged unlawful detention and repeated instances of non-availability of police station CCTV footage, observing that the situation relating to civil liberties in the State is "shameful, to say the least".

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev said that the police appear to have "little regard" for the fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens. It added that infringement of these rights seems to have become a matter of routine for the UP Police.

Importantly, the Court also held that the police could not use the excuse of CCTV malfunctioning in a case of alleged unlawful detention.

The Court made these observations while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Afzal Ahmad, who claimed that he was taken into custody by Bijnor Police on September 5, 2026, but his formal arrest was shown only on September 7, 2026.

The Court directed that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. It further directed the State to pay ₹20,000 as costs to the corpus within seven days.

Case in brief

The petition was filed by Ahmad's daughter alleging that the police personnel and SOG officials in civil dress forcibly took away her father from outside the police station, where both of them had gone after being called by the police.

According to the plea, they reached the police station at around 2:30 pm on September 5, 2026. While they were in their vehicle and had contacted the SHO, a car entered the premises near the police station gate. 4 persons allegedly came out of the vehicle, surrounded their car and forcibly took Ahmad away.

To ascertain the veracity of the allegations, the High Court had earlier directed the State to produce CCTV recordings of the police station from September 5, 2026, at 1 pm, until September 7, 2026, at 10 am.

However, when the matter was taken up, the State informed the Court that the CCTV footage for the said period was not available.

The State relied on a general diary entry dated September 5, 2026, which stated that a thunderstorm occurred and water trickled down the LAN cable into the CCTV system, causing it to malfunction and fail.

High Court's observations

However, the Bench took exception to the police's explanation and referred to repeated instances when CCTV footage was not made available when the Court called for it.

It observed thus:

"In case after case whenever CCTV footages are called for by this Court, in large majority of the cases, it is the same report which comes stating that CCTV footage is not available on account of one reason or other".

The bench also pointed out that the overall issue concerning the failure of the CCTV system in Uttar Pradesh was being dealt with separately in another matter (presently reserved for Judgment).

The bench also said that the further remarked thus:

"The situation that exists in the State of Uttar Pradesh relating to the civil liberty is shamitl, to say the least. The police appear to have little regard for the fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens, and the infringement of these rights seems to have become a matter of routine for the U.P. Police."

The Bench further made an observation on the explanation of CCTV malfunction in cases involving alleged unlawful detention.

"The excuse of a CCTV malfunctioning is not available to the police in a case of unlawful detention", it said.

The Court added that any such explanation would be sufficient for it to accept the petitioners' contention that the corpus had been unlawfully detained and that the CCTV footage was deliberately withheld to "obfuscate the truth maliciously".

In this case, the Court also took note of the role of SHO Annu Kumari, observing that she had deliberately not provided the CCTV footage relevant to deciding the case.

It said that this led the Court to presume that the footage was against the interest of respondent no. 3 and had, therefore, been deliberately withheld.

Recording its displeasure against the SHO, the Bench directed that the same be entered into her service records. It further said that the State should consider her further continuation on the present post.

Allowing the habeas corpus petition, the Court directed the immediate release of Ahmad, if he was not wanted in any other case.

The State was also directed to pay ₹20,000 as costs to the petitioners within 7 days.