Allahabad HC Orders 24/7 CCTV at Police Stations, Sets Safeguards for System Failure

In a strong rebuke to police misconduct, the Allahabad High Court quashed the arrest of a sand mining contractor and laid down comprehensive guidelines for CCTV surveillance at police stations across the state.

A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev on September 23, 2026 , allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Raghvendra Dubey, who was arrested in connection with a dispute arising from a sand-mining agreement. The court not only set aside his arrest and awarded ₹10,000 compensation for 24 hours of illegal detention , but also issued sweeping directions requiring police stations to maintain round-the-clock CCTV surveillance and to follow strict protocols during system failures.

The Sand Mining Dispute That Led to Arrest

The case originated from an FIR registered on May 9, 2026 , at Police Station Sardhuwa, Chitrakoot, under Sections 420, 406, and 506 IPC . The informant, Pradeep Yadav, proprietor of M/s RPS Enterprises, alleged that Dubey—who runs Ayaninfra Developers Firm—had induced him to participate in a sand mining allotment by promising 19% profit. Yadav claimed he invested over ₹2.37 crore in constructing roads, a camp office, and a weighbridge, and even gave ₹1.07 crore directly to Dubey's firm. He alleged that Dubey not only failed to pay any profit but also forcibly removed him from the mining site and threatened him.

Dubey, through his wife Jyotsana Dubey, contended that the dispute was purely civil and that he was illegally picked up from a barber shop in Asansol on July 12, 2026 , and brought to Chitrakoot by police acting at the behest of the informant. The State countered that Dubey had been absconding and was arrested only after non-bailable warrants were issued.

When CCTV Footage Tells a Different Story

The court examined CCTV footage from the police station for July 13, 2026 —the day after Dubey's alleged illegal pick-up. Of the five cameras installed at the station, footage from only two was available: one covering the entrance and exit, and another covering the lock-up. Footage from three interior cameras was missing.

The available footage revealed a startling timeline: Dubey entered the police station at 9:00 AM, left at 10:19 AM with Investigating Officer Azhar Jamal in the informant's vehicle, and returned only at 8:24 PM. However, the arrest memo showed his arrest at 3:30 PM from a location outside the station, and the general diary recorded his entry into the lock-up at 6:41 PM—two hours before he actually returned.

The police claimed Dubey was kept in the CCTNS room, but the camera covering that room was among those whose footage was missing. The bench rejected the explanation that an information technology official had failed to save the feeds, calling it "false and mischievous."

"The feeds within the police Thana were deliberately either deleted or deliberately not saved in the DVR," the court observed.

Applying the adverse presumption under Section 119(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 , the court held that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the police.

'Police Acted as Recovery Agents '

The court found that Dubey remained in the constructive custody of the police even when he was taken away in the informant's vehicle for a purported mediation attempt. The bench made a scathing observation:

"The facts of this particular case, prima facie , strongly go to disclose that the police personnel acted as recovery agents on behalf of the complainant."

The court also noted that the arrest memo was "grossly deficient"—the grounds of arrest merely referred to details in the case diary, which was insufficient under the law laid down by the Supreme Court . No independent witness had signed the arrest memo ; both signatories were police personnel.

Landmark Directions for CCTV Surveillance

While setting aside the arrest and ordering Dubey's release, the court addressed what it called "another worrying aspect"—the repeated manipulation of CCTV cameras in police stations. The bench directed:

  • CCTV systems must remain functional 24/7, 365 days a year.
  • If a system fails, the Station House Officer must make a General Diary entry recording the exact time of failure and the official to whom the failure was reported in writing.
  • The district Superintendent of Police must be informed and must ensure minimal downtime, recording steps taken for repair.
  • During any period when CCTV is non-functional, every person brought to the station for interrogation or arrest must be immediately documented in the General Diary , including the time of entry.
  • If such a person is released while CCTV remains non-functional, the time of release must be recorded, and a receipt must be obtained from the person or their next of kin acknowledging the release.

The court warned that failure to comply with these safeguards would lead to an adverse presumption that allegations of illegal detention are correct.

The Bottom Line

The judgment sends a clear message that police stations cannot operate as black boxes. By requiring contemporaneous documentation during CCTV downtime and penalizing deliberate manipulation of footage, the Allahabad High Court has taken a significant step toward ensuring transparency and accountability in custodial settings.

As for Raghvendra Dubey, he walked free—but only after spending 24 hours in illegal custody that earned him ₹10,000 and a landmark precedent.