SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
HINDH LIYAKATH ALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 1367 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ANAND REMESH, SMT.KEERTHI VIJAYAN, SMT.FEBA MARY THOMAS
For the Respondents: SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ

The court emphasized the necessity to preserve evidence relevant to a criminal case pending in lower courts.

Headnote:This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus to preserve CCTV footage from the Museum Police Station pertaining to specific dates. The petitioner contends that the footage will reveal the truth, as she alleges harassment by police. The court directed preservation subject to further orders by the jurisdictional court. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. the necessity of preserving evidence for ongoing criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 4 , 5)
2. the court's role in examining procedural requests under article 226. (Para 2)
3. the court's direction for preservation of evidence. (Para 6)
4. final decision of the court regarding the writ petition. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

The prayers in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-

“A) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding and compelling the 3rd & 4th respondent to make necessary arrangements in preserving the CCTV footage of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram from 13.05.2025 to 15.05.2025 and 22.05.2025 to 23.05.2025 including footages of Front Entry, GD Desk, SI Cabin , Crime Wing Camera, SHO Cabin.

B) Pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The petitioner seeks preservation of the CCTV footage of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, from 13.05.2025 to 15.05.2025 and from 22.05.2025 to 23.05.2025, including the audio and footage from the Front Entry, GD Desk, SI Cabin, Crime Wing Camera, and SHO Cabin.

4. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.879/2025 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, facing offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC. She was arrested by the Museum Police. The petitioner alleges that she was harassed by the Museum Police from 13.05.2025 to 15.05.2025 and 22.05.2025 to

23.05.2025 by the Police Officials.

5. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner contends that the CCTV footage, sought to be preserved, would reveal what really transpired in the Police Station. It is the case of the petitioner that the CCTV footage and the audio clips show that the crime registered against her is fabricated.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the CCTV footage and audio clips sought to be preserved are kept intact. This submission is recorded.

7. The parties are at liberty to approach the Jurisdictional Court seeking further orders in the matter. However, there will be a direction to the respondents to preserve the CCTV footage and audio clips subject to the orders of the Jurisdictional Court.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top