Rajesh Kumar Pandey | TNN
A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev in its Nov 3 order strongly criticized the UP police over unlawful detention and repeated instances of non-availability of CCTV footage directing that petitioner Aausad Ahmad be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. The court further directed the state to pay Rs 20,000 as costs to him within seven days. In the petition, Ahmad’s daughter claimed that the Bijnor police took him into custody on Sept 5, 2026, but his formal arrest was shown only on Sept 7, 2026. They reached the police station at around 2:30 PM on Sept 5, 2026, according to the petition. To verify the allegations, the High Court earlier directed the police to produce CCTV recordings from the police station from Sept 5, 2026, at 1 PM, until Sept 7, 2026, at 10 AM.
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 UP Police,” the bench said while passing the order. Prayagraj: Observing that Uttar Pradesh Police has little regard for the fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens, the Allahabad high court recently allowed a habeas corpus writ petition and ordered the release of a Bijnor resident. “The situation that exists in the state of Uttar Pradesh relating to the civil liberty is shameful, to say the least. She has alleged that police personnel and SOG officials in civil dress forcibly took away her father from outside the police station – Nangal of Bijnor, where both of them had gone after being called by the police in connection with a case lodged against Ahmad alleging a honey trap. a car entered the premises near the police station gate While they were in their vehicle and had contacted the SHO. Four persons allegedly came out of the vehicle, surrounded their car, and forcibly took Ahmad away. The court further clarified that the excuse of a CCTV malfunctioning is not available to the police in a case of unlawful detention. The court added that any such explanation would be sufficient for it to accept the petitioner’s contention that the corpus had been unlawfully detained and that the CCTV footage was deliberately withheld to obfuscate the truth maliciously.