Deoria, Uttar Pradesh: The Allahabad High Court has sharply questioned police officials in Deoria over missing CCTV footage from a police station in a case alleging the unlawful detention of four petitioners. The Court criticised the explanations offered by the Station House Officer (SHO) and Superintendent of Police (SP) regarding the alleged failure of the CCTV system and ordered ₹65,000 in compensation for the petitioners.
A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant was hearing a habeas corpus petition concerning the alleged detention of four people at Gauri Bazar Police Station between April 13 and April 24, 2026.
During the hearing, Justice Sreedharan orally described the officials as a “bunch of liars” while questioning the circumstances surrounding the CCTV failure and the absence of recordings for the relevant period.
Court Questions Missing CCTV Footage From Police Station
The case centres on allegations that four petitioners were unlawfully detained at Gauri Bazar Police Station in Deoria, with some allegedly kept there for around 10 days.
The High Court had earlier directed the State to produce CCTV recordings from inside the police station to determine the veracity of the allegations. However, during an earlier hearing, the State informed the Court that the CCTV recording system had developed a fault around the time of the alleged detention.
The Court subsequently summoned the Deoria SP and the concerned SHO personally.
SHO Says CCTV Developed Fault On April 12
During the latest hearing, the Bench repeatedly questioned the SHO about the missing recordings.
The Court asked why recordings were unavailable if the camera system had reportedly been functioning from April 14. The SHO reportedly told the Court that the CCTV system had developed a fault on April 12.
The Bench also asked whether a General Diary (GD) entry had been made documenting the repair or failure of the CCTV system. The SHO reportedly acknowledged that no such GD entry had been made.
The Court’s questioning also focused on the SHO’s responsibility for the police station’s CCTV system during the relevant period.
SP Says He Was Not Informed About CCTV Failure
The Deoria SP told the Bench that he had not been informed that the CCTV system was not functioning.
The Court questioned the SP about what disciplinary action had been taken against the SHO over the CCTV lapse. When the SP apologised to the Court, Justice Sreedharan reportedly responded:
“Don’t apologize to the Court. Apologize to the people.”
The Bench also questioned why the SHO had not been suspended or terminated if the authorities considered him responsible for the lapse. The SP said the SHO had been transferred to the Crime Branch, but the Court indicated that it was not satisfied with this response.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
Court Questions ₹46.46 Lakh CCTV Expenditure
The High Court also examined the broader issue of CCTV installation and maintenance at police stations in Deoria.
According to the Court’s proceedings, the State Government had released ₹46.46 lakh for police stations in the district. The Bench questioned why the entire amount had allegedly been released to the agency responsible for the CCTV work even though the work was reportedly incomplete.
The Court questioned why the agency had not instead been blacklisted, observing that the funds had been released on the basis of an assurance.
The Bench had also earlier questioned the timing of action taken by district authorities, noting that some measures attributed to the SP were dated August 14 after the High Court’s August 4 order.
The Court observed that, prima facie, it appeared that action by the district authorities may have been initiated only after the petition was filed and the Court passed its order.
₹65,000 Compensation To Be Recovered From SHO’s Salary
The Court directed the State Government to pay ₹20,000 each to petitioners 2, 3 and 4, along with ₹5,000 to petitioner 1, based on the periods of unlawful detention alleged in the petition.
The total compensation comes to ₹65,000.
Importantly, the Court directed that the amount be recovered from the salary of the concerned SHO.
What This Means For You:Police station CCTV can be crucial evidence when people allege illegal detention, custodial misconduct or other abuse of authority. When footage is missing because of an unexplained technical failure, it can make independent verification difficult and raise questions about whether proper safeguards were followed.
The420 Insight: The case highlights that CCTV systems are meaningful only when they are continuously maintained, properly monitored and supported by documented procedures for technical failures. The High Court’s scrutiny of the SHO, SP and CCTV expenditure also shows that accountability can extend beyond the missing footage to the officials responsible for maintaining the system and responding to such lapses.
Follow the Centre for Police Technology on LinkedIn to stay updated on the latest developments in policing, cybersecurity, digital forensics, investigations, fraud risk management, and technology-driven public safety.
Centre for Police Technology on LinkedIn
About the author — Ananya Aradhya writes on cybercrime, fraud, scams, cybersecurity, digital safety, and emerging threats. Her work also covers major criminal cases, financial frauds, consumer scams, and stories that highlight risks affecting people in the real and digital world.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
