Bail Granted to Foreigners in Detention Centre Assault Case; Delhi HC Orders MHA Probe into Missing CCTV Footage & Possible Fabrication - 2025-09-15

Delhi High Court Orders MHA Inquiry into Missing CCTV Footage at Detention Centre

New Delhi: In a case highlighting serious administrative lapses, the Delhi High Court on Monday granted bail to two foreign nationals accused of assaulting a guard at a detention centre but also directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to probe the "peculiar circumstances" surrounding missing CCTV evidence and a potential fabrication of the incident.

Justice Girish Kathpalia, while hearing the bail pleas of Nnamdi Ezeneche and Samuel Ikedichukwu Okomgbo, expressed surprise at the inter-departmental blame game that led to the prosecution's failure to produce crucial video footage of the alleged assault.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, Nnamdi Ezeneche and Samuel Ikedichukwu Okomgbo, were detained at the Seva Sadan detention centre in Lampur, awaiting deportation as their passports and visas had expired. They were booked under an FIR for offences including assault on a public servant (Section 353 IPC) and violation of the Foreigners Act.

The prosecution alleged that the two men, along with other detenues, committed violence within the centre and caused injury to a guard by twisting his arm. While the chargesheet has been filed and the trial is underway, the case took a significant turn during the bail proceedings.

Arguments and Court's Observations

The state prosecutor, while not strongly opposing the bail, requested that the petitioners be sent back to the detention centre upon release due to their expired travel documents.

However, the court's focus shifted to the evidence, or lack thereof. Justice Kathpalia noted that despite repeated adjournments, the prosecution could not produce legally admissible CCTV footage of the incident. This raised concerns about the veracity of the allegations.

The "Peculiar Circumstances" of Missing Evidence

The court observed a startling lack of accountability among the agencies responsible for the detention centre's security. A status report filed by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Narela revealed a circular chain of blame:

• The Department of Social Welfare claimed it only handled caretaking, while CCTV was managed by the CRPF.
• The CRPF denied responsibility, stating the cameras were not under their jurisdiction and pointing towards the FRRO.
• The FRRO deflected back to the Department of Social Welfare, stating they had installed the cameras and should possess the footage.

In its judgment, the court extracted the relevant portion of the status report, highlighting the administrative chaos:

"It is quite surprising that footage of the CCTV cameras installed at the detention centre, namely Seva Sadan, Lampur, is being withheld from the investigator... The Department of Social Welfare alleges that the CCTV is manned by CRPF; but CRPF alleges that CCTV is manned by FRRO; but the FRRO alleges that the CCTV is manned by the Department of Social Welfare."

This led the court to consider "a possibility that the entire incident was fabricated to somehow help the detenues in not being deported to the countries of their origin."

Final Decision and Implications

Considering the minor nature of the alleged injury and the prosecution's failure to produce key evidence, the High Court granted bail to both petitioners.

Key directions from the judgment:

• Bail Granted: Both applicants were directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each.
• Return to Detention: As they lack valid passports and visas, they will be sent back to the detention centre.
• MHA Inquiry: A copy of the order is to be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, to "carry out appropriate inquiry and, if necessary, investigation in accordance with law" into the circumstances surrounding the missing footage and the conflicting claims of the government departments.

The court's order not only provides relief to the accused but also mandates a high-level inquiry into the functioning of detention centres and the accountability of the agencies managing them. The outcome of the MHA's investigation could have significant implications for security protocols and evidence management at such facilities.