Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court directed CCTV systems within police stations to remain operational 24/7 x 365 days.The high court laid down guidelines to be followed by the police when CCTV surveillance in a police station is non-functional.Accordingly, the court directed that details of all persons brought for interrogation or arrest must be recorded contemporaneously in the general diary (GD).A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev issued these directions in the case of Raghvendra Dubey and another versus State Of UP and four others.While setting aside the arrest of the petitioner due to a grossly deficient arrest memo witnessed only by police personnel, the bench ordered the petitioner’s release and awarded Rs 10,000 as compensation for 24 hours of illegal detention.The court said, “Another worrying aspect of this case to which this court must advert to is the repeated number of cases in which the police are trying to manipulate CCTV cameras on the premises of the police station.”The court directed that if a system fails, the SHO must make a GD entry recording the exact time of failure and identify the official to whom the failure was reported in writing, and the SP of the district must be informed to ensure minimal downtime and record repair steps.“During CCTV non-functionality, entry time, departure time, and interrogation details of every suspect must be recorded in the GD. A signed receipt must be obtained from the person or their next of kin upon release,” added the court.According to the petitioner, he was illegally picked up in a sand-mining agreement dispute case from Asansol (West Bengal) and brought to Sardhuwa police station in Chitrakoot district.On the other hand, the state argued that the petitioner was arrested pursuant to non-bailable warrants after the registration of an FIR.The CCTV footage showed the petitioner entering the police station at 9 am on Jul 13, leaving at 10:19 am with the investigating officer in the informant’s vehicle, and returning at 8:24 pm. However, his arrest memo recorded arrest at 3:30 pm, and the GD recorded lock-up entry at 6:41 pm. Interior CCTV footage from three cameras was missing or deleted.The court observed, “The facts of this case, prima facie, strongly disclose that the police personnel acted as recovery agents on behalf of the complainant.”
