BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Bala Arun Raja ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

3.Public Information Officer, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumar.

4.The Chief Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. ... Respondents (R4 is suo motu impleaded by this Court dated 20.01.2026)

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the 1^st respondent to save the CCTV footage of vadasery Police Station dated 30.10.2025 from 8.30 AM to 9.00 PM and CCTV footages of Vadasery police station dated 10.11.2025 from 9.45AM to

10.45PM.

For Petitioner : Mr.KA.Raamakrishnan For R1-R3 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

For R4 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate assisted by Mr.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General

ORDER

Preface :

The present Criminal Original Petition raises an issue of recurring constitutional concern touching upon the accountability of police machinery, the right of citizens to safety within police stations, and the indispensability of CCTV surveillance as a safeguard against arbitrariness and excesses. The prayer is limited in nature, yet the ramifications are of considerable public importance.

2. Factual Backdrop :

The petitioner seeks a direction for preservation and furnishing of CCTV footage of the Vadasery Police Station for two specific dates and time slots, namely 30.10.2025 and 10.11.2025, asserting that certain untoward incidents had occurred during his presence in the police station pursuant to bail conditions imposed by a competent court.

Submissions :

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.3882 of 2025 dated 17.12.2025 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, in connection with Crime No.383 of 2025 on the file of the second respondent police. In compliance with the conditions imposed in the said anticipatory bail order, the petitioner appeared before the second respondent police on 30.10.2025 and 10.11.2025. During the said appearances, the petitioner was allegedly subjected to treatment warranting preservation of CCTV footage to protect his legal rights and personal safety. Despite making a request for preservation of the CCTV footage pertaining to the relevant dates and time periods, the second respondent police failed and refused to act upon the same. It was further contended that the Investigating Officer had appeared before the learned trial Court and tendered an apology for the manner in which the petitioner was treated, thereby lending credence to the petitioner’s apprehension and request. Hence, it was prayed that this Court may issue an appropriate direction to preserve and furnish the CCTV footage.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

submitted that the FIR in Crime No.383 of 2025 came to be registered based on a complaint lodged by one Yasoda, the defacto complainant. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the petitioner and allegedly repaid a total sum of Rs.58,50,000/-, yet the petitioner continued to threaten her. It was further submitted that the petitioner had retained the key of a vehicle which was allegedly handed over as security, and upon insistence by the police to return the same, the petitioner became aggrieved and has now filed the present petition. The learned Government Advocate also contended that even after being granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation.

5. Rejoinder by the petitioner:

The learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically denied the allegation of non-cooperation and reiterated that the conduct of the police officials themselves was questionable, w