HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3821 of 2026

Sanu @ Rashid

…..Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

…..Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s):Vijit Saxena

Counsel for Opposite Party(s):Amit Shukla, G.A.

Court No. - 69

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Affidavits of compliance filed by the learned AGA on behalf of

Sri Anurag Awasthi, Station House Officer, Police Station-Kotwali,

District-Lalitpur as well as Sri Narendra Singh, Investigating

Officer are taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri

Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Anoop

Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri

Pankaj Saxena along with Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for

the State and perused the record.

3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to

release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.881 of 2025, under

Sections-318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS, Police Station-

Kotwali Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur, during the pendency of the trial.

4. As per the prosecution story, present applicant, in collusion with

some of the co-accused, opened the bank accounts of some of

2

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

the loanees in Axis Bank and after getting sanctioned the loan

from Bajaj Finance Ltd., in collusion with the officials of finance

company, transferred the same in that account and thereafter,

withdrew a major part of the loan amount from those accounts,

and very small amount was given to loanee thereby cheating the

Bajaj Finance Limited.

5. This matter was heard on 04.02.2026. On that date, learned

counsel for the applicant has submitted that actually, the police

has taken the custody of the applicant on 14.09.2025 without

showing his formal arrest. Thereafter, the sister of the applicant

moved an application before the CJM, Lalitpur on 16.09.2025,

mentioning therein that the police has taken the applicant into

custody on 14.09.2025, but his arrest has not been shown till

date. Apart from the above application, an anticipatory bail

application was also filed on behalf of the applicant on

16.09.2025, mentioning therein about the illegal custody of the

applicant since 14.09.2025 and same was dismissed on

18.09.2025, on being informed by the DGC (Criminal) about the

arrest of the applicant in the morning of 17.09.2025.

6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur considering the

application dated 16.09.2025, directed the police station

concerned vide order dated 17.09.2025 to submit report regarding

illegal arrest and providing CCTV footage of the police station.

When no report was submitted, then the learned Magistrate, vide

order dated 22.09.2025, directed the In-charge I.O., Police

Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur to show cause why he has not

complied the order dated 17.09.2025 and also directed him to

appear personally before him on 24.09.2025. A copy of this notice

was also sent to the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur. Despite

the order dated 22.09.2025, neither any report was submitted nor

the CCTV footage of the police station has been produced before

the court. Then the CJM again issued a notice dated 30.09.2025,

3

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

directing the SHO as well as I.O. to comply his earlier order by

producing CCTV footage of the police station for 14/15.09.2025

and further sought an explanation why the co-accused Rashida,

despite being a lady, has been arrested at 4:00 am, though, a lady

cannot be arrested after the sunset and before the sunrise. In the

aforesaid notice/order, the learned CJM, specifically directed to

SHO as well as I.O. to submit their explanation by 04.10.2025.

Despite the order dated 30.09.2025, neither the SHO nor the I.O.

of Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur has provided CCTV

footage or explanation as sought by earlier order. Then the In-

charge CJM, Lalitpur passed a fresh order dated 03.11.2025,

directing the SHO as well as the I.O. of Police Station-Kotwali,

District-Lalitpur that in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in

the case of Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh And Others

reported in (2021) 1 SCC 184, they were required to keep the

CCTV footage at least for six months, but they have not produced

the CCTV footage. Therefore, they should appear before him at

10:00 am on 04.11.2025 along with the CCTV footage of the

police station regarding the concerned dates. The record shows

that order of the CJM, Lalitpur was neither complied by the SHO

nor the I.O., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur. For the

reference, the orders dated 22.09.2025, 30.09.2025 and

03.11.2025 of CJM, Lalitpur are being quoted as under:

"न्यायालय मुख्य न्यायियक मजिस्ट्रेट, ललिलतपुर।

नोटिटस

बनाम

f0GP6C8uuBrF,

tG-GCF3SuG 6, ललिलतपुर।

.9Gu 6C2PFGPC1-GOC2G-'CKW, CPG(nmCaG-, मु.अ.सं.-881/2025, धारा

318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) बी.एन.एस. tG-GCF3SuG 6, जिला ललिलतपुर के

fFP<CO=CfG>t-6C238WIGC.U96CDG8?PCaG-C@GPGCKACfFP<CO=CBCPCFG-'-6Cg(0PDGCFB

संबंध में सी.सी.टी.u6. र्फुECDCS 1C8FIBCDG-BC?BSUCHIGIG ICO=CfGt,-G.9CfASUSC8FIG

4

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

गया था, जिस पर टिदनांक 17.09.2025 को पीठासीन अयिधकारी द्वारा सम्बंयिधत थाने

IRIGCfASUSC8F;CDG-BC?BSUCImB(nSC8FIGCBIGCtGC.PhSUCI.FB C@GPGCIDC8m-GhFCSF

न्यायालय के समक्ष उक्त के सम्बंध में कोई आख्या प्रस्तुत न?ीं की गई। अतः आपको

ImB(nSC8FIGCDGSGC?CC8FC8m-GhF- 24.09.2025 को न्यायालय मुख्य न्यायियक

मजिस्ट्रेट, ललिलतपुर में व्यटिक्तगत रूप से उपस्थिस्थत ?ोकर इस आ(य का स्पष्टीकरण

fASUSCFP-GC2U8-TSSCFP=oCK.PAtSC-C?3-BCFLCmnGCO=CI?COG-GCDG;BGC8FCI.F3CFुछ

-?KCF?-GC?CC;uhCI.FB C8uOUC8uT52hBSCFGI,uG?6CgO CO=C GI6CDG;B6o

टिदनांक- 22.09.2025 मुख्य न्यायियक मजिस्ट्रेट,

ललिलतपुर।

प्रयितलिलटिप - IuVIFCFGI,uG?6C;uhC2'r-Gt,CfB8WSo

1-पुलिलस अधीक्षक, ललिलतपुर।

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

न्यायालय-मुख्य न्यायियक मजिस्ट्रेट, ललिलतपुर।

नोटिटस

बनाम

प्रापक,

टिनरीक्षक/थानाध्यक्ष/8uuBrF

tG-GCF3SuG 6, ललिलतपुर

मु.अ.सं.-881/2025, धारा-318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2),

341(2) बी.एन.एस., tG-GCF3SuG 6, N S.UPCFB CfFP<CO=CtG-GC2BC2626E6u6CWुटे

OhBGI6CBI6Ct6CD3Cg06CSFCHIGIG ICO=CfASUSC-?KCFLCBI6C?C, ो टिक बे?द

I.NYD-FC?CoCI.F3CImB(nSC8FIGCDGSGC?CC8FCg8ZOC8-ISCTS(tCSFCg8-uGI,

O.C2BC2626E6u6CWुटे प्रस्तुत करे। साथ-?ी-2GtCI?C06CA.RCFPBC8FC[I\CuC8F-

कारणों से प्रस्तुत मामले में अशिभयुAGCP26mGC.]-6CD8?PCaG-CFLC8BP^SGP6C2U1?C04-

00 बे, D3C8FC2'I_mIC2BC.'u,CFGC2OIC?C, की गयी ?ै।

अतः उक्त आख्या की स्पष्ट स्थिस्थयित के संबंध में आप अपना स्पष्टीकरण टिदनांक

04.10.2025 को लंच उपरान्त तक व्यटिक्तगत रुप से अधो?स्ताक्षरी के समक्ष उपस्थिस्थत

?3FPCfASUSCFP-GC2U8-TSSCFP=oCgHItGCFLCPAtTSCO=CI.FB C8uOUC8uT52hBS

FGI,uG?6CmD,CFLCDGIBB6o

टिदनांक-30.09.2025 (P8uCnhFPCBUaG)

मुख्य न्यायियक मजिस्ट्रेट,

ललिलतपुर।

5

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

न्यायालय-मुख्य न्यायियक मजिस्ट्रेट, ललिलतपुर।

नोटिटस

बनाम

प्रापक,

टिनरीक्षक/थानाध्यक्ष/8uuBrF

tG-GCF3SuG 6, जिला ललिलतपुर।

-38E2CFB COGXIOC2BCI.F3C2'TrSC8FIGCDGSGC?CC8FCOUbgb2hbC881/2025,

धारा 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), बी.एन.एस. tG-GCF3SuG 6, जिला

TS.UPCFB CfFP<CO=CHIGIG IC@GPGCFJC1GPC-38E2CDGP6CFPCI.2BC2626E616CWुटे

मांगी गयी, जिन्?ें आपके द्वारा प्रस्तुत न?ीं टिकया गया?ै, ोटिक अत्यन्त आपलिYनक ?ै।

OG--6ICKcSOCHIGIG IC@GPGCfTSuG8mSC8uT5NIAtGC.POu6PCd2?C2B-6C1-GO

1 D6SCd2?C;uhCgHICA.Bn C 6uC8.E6n-C(टिeटिमनल) नम्बर 3543/2020 में सभी

पुलिलस थानों के परिरसर में सीसीटीबी र्फुEBDC BGIBCDG-BC?BSUC8-mg(nSC8FIGCBIGC?CCStG

सीसीटीबी र्फुटे को कम से कम छः मा? तक संरयिक्षत रखने ?ेतु टिनदgशि(त टिकया गया ?ै।

माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इला?ाबाद, @GPGCfTS.G8mSC8uT5CNIuAtGCPDSC1GD.BI6

1-GOCKYPCfmBnCPGhIC8e8O- CfPu6D-C8O2 B8-I2C8.E6n-C-H1PC5811/2023 में

tG-\CFB C2626E616CFC OPBCaPG1CguAtGCO=C?3-BCFB CI.NYCFGC8uWICOG-GCBIGC?Co

उयु,ACfFP<CO=C8F26C06CNI8ACFB CfG<CuCmC8?FCAuSh9SGCD38FC0GPS6I

2h8u5G-CFB Cg-UiTBm C21 O=Cu><SC?C, उसका मौलिलक अयिधकार ?ै, के उल्लंघन से

2H1PH5SC?CoCgSMC8-mg(nSC8FIGCDGSGC?CC8FCI.C2626E616CWुटे के साथ टिदनांक

04.11.2025 को समय करीब 10:00 बे सुब? व्यटिक्तगत रूप से अधो?स्ताक्षरी के

समक्ष प्रस्तुत ?ोना सुटिनयिSत करें, gHItGCFLCPAtTSCO=CI.FB C8uOUCOGbCKcSO

HIGIG ICuCOGbCKcCHIGIG ICFB C@GPGCfTSuG8mSC8uT5CNIuAtGnं के आलोक में

guOG--GCFLCFGI,uG?6CgO CO=C GI6CDGIBB6o

टिदनांक 03.11.2025 0um6I

(mBu8fIC2GPAuS),

प्रभारी- मुख्य न्यायियक मजिस्ट्रेट

जिला ललिलतपुर।"

6

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

7. Considering the above facts and taking into account that it is a

case of not only the illegal detention, but also disobeying the

direction of the Apex Court issued in the case of Paramvir Singh

Saini (supra), this Court, vide order dated 04.02.2026, directed

the concerned SHO as well as I.O. to appear personally before

this Court along with the CCTV footage dated 14/15.09.2025. On

18.02.2026, Sri Narendra Singh, present I.O. of this case, who

has joined the investigation on 25.09.2025 as well as Sri Anurag

Awasthi, SHO, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur, appeared

in person and expressed their inability to produce the CCTV

footage, on the ground that storage capacity is only up to two

months and the same has been deleted. However, they could not

give any explanation as to why they have not complied with the

orders of CJM, Lalitpur dated 22.09.2025, 30.09.2025 and

03.11.2025 and offered an unconditional apology for non-

compliance of the order of CJM, Lalitpur. Therefore, the Court

directed both these two officers to file their personal affidavits

regarding the explanation for non-compliance of the order of CJM,

Lalitpur and tender an apology, and the matter was posted for

19.02.2026.

8. Vide order dated 18.02.2026, SP, Lalitpur was also directed to

appear personally through video conferencing to inform this Court

whether District Level Oversight Committee (in short ‘DLOC’) has

been constituted in district-Lalitpur or not.

9. Today, personal affidavits have been filed by the above two

officers. In the personal affidavits, Sri Narendra Singh, present

I.O. as well as S.H.O., Sri Anurag Awasthi, though, offered an

unconditional apology, but did not give any reason why they have

not complied with the orders of CJM, Lalitpur and simply

mentioned that the same was due to inadvertence. In paragraph

no.7, it has been mentioned that the earlier I.O., Kamlesh Kumar,

who was investigating this case till 24.09.2025, has been

7

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

suspended by the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, for the

reason that he did not produce the footage before the concerned

court. However, from a perusal of the suspension order of

Kamlesh Kumar, it is clear that he has been suspended for other

reasons and not for the non-compliance of the orders of CJM,

Lalitpur. It is also mentioned in the above personal affidavits of

present I.O., Narendra Singh and S.H.O., Anurag Awasthi, that

the storage capacity installed in the police station is 10 terabyte

(TB), and therefore, the CCTV footage can be stored up to two

months and for that reason, the same is not available.

10. It is further mentioned in the above personal affidavits that

though a State Level Oversight Committee (in short ‘SLOC’) as

well as DLOC have been constituted in pursuance of the

Government Order dated 06.01.2021, but till date, no meeting of

the aforesaid Committee has been held. In the last part of the

aforesaid personal affidavits, it is mentioned that both the officers

tendered their unconditional apology for the inconvenience

caused to this Court.

11. Even the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, who appeared

before this Court through video conferencing has also admitted

this fact that he was not aware about the non-compliance of the

order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur, and had he been

aware about non-compliance of order of CJM, Lalitpur then, would

have taken strict action against the concerned police officers. It

was also informed by the S.P., Lalitpur that he received a copy of

the notice dated 22.09.2025 sent by CJM, Lalitpur to the

Investigating Officer regarding CCTV footage and after receiving

the same, he immediately directed the Investigating Officer as

well as SHO vide order dated 23.09.2025 to comply with the order

of CJM, Lalitpur. The above fact shows that SHO as well as the

concerned I.O. has not complied the order of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Lalitpur deliberately and no plausible reason has been

8

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

given in their personal affidavits, except offering an unconditional

apology.

12. This Court is aware of the power of courts in bail matters, but

here, the issue is regarding illegal arrest and not providing the

CCTV footage to the concerned CJM, despite his repeated

orders. Therefore, this Court, being a Constitutional Court, cannot

shut its eyes, as here the question is not only the violation of

personal liberty of a person enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 of the

Constitution of India, but also disregard to the order of the judicial

authorities, which has effect of demeaning the authority of law.

13. The Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West

Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416, considering the issue of

illegal arrest and detention, observed that personal liberty of a

person is a cherished right granted by our Constitution under

Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it issued

several directions including maintaining the record of arrest in

General Diary, Preparation of Memo of Arrest, information to the

nearest relative or family members regarding arrest,

establishment of police control room in each district, information to

the police control room about arrest within 12 hours from the

arrest and the name of arrestee shall be displayed on the notice

board of the police control room. It was also mentioned in these

directions that all the documents prepared during and after the

arrest, including the information to the family members, should be

sent to the Ilaka Magistrate for his record. It was also observed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of arrest, arrest memo

should be witnessed by one of the family members or any

respectable person of the society and the arrestee has right to

inform any friend or one of his family members. It was also

observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that these directions should

be displayed at a conspicuous place of the police station and in

case of any violation, that should be treated as a contempt of

9

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

Court and the High Court has been authorised to initiate contempt

proceedings for any non-compliance. For reference, paragraph

nos.35 and 36 of the D.K. Basu's case (supra) are quoted as

under :

“35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements

to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made

in that behalf as preventive measures:

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the

interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear

identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all

such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be

recorded in a register.

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare

a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at

least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or

a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also

be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody

in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to

have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in

his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested

and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of

the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be

notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives

outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District

and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of

8 to 12 hours after the arrest.

(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone

informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is

detained.

(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the

arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of

the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars

of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.

(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of

his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must

be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the

arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the

arrestee.

(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained

doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel

of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or

Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a

panel for all tehsils and districts as well.

10

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to

above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.

(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation,

though not throughout the interrogation.

(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State

headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody

of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within

12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be

displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

36. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall

apart from rendering the official concerned liable for departmental action,

also render him liable to be punished for contempt of court and the

proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court of the

country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.”

14. The above guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of

D.K. Basu's case (supra) has been incorporated in the Cr.P.C.

by making amendment in different years. Section 50A was

inserted by the amendment in the year 2006 and Section 60A was

inserted by amendment in 2009 and thereafter, Sections 41A,

41B, 41C, 41D were added by the amendment in the year 2010.

Therefore, the directions issued in D.K. Basu’s case (supra)

regarding the arrest and detention are no more simply directions

taking into account Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India

but these directions have also become the statutory mandate as

per the Cr.P.C. (Now BNSS).

15. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that the

personal liberty of a person cannot be deprived, except in

accordance with the established procedure of law and similarly,

Article 22 of the Constitution of India further provides protection

against the arrest and detention, and production of arrestee

before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours. For reference,

Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India are being quoted as

under:

“21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of

his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

11

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.—(1) No person

who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon

as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to

consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.

(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced

before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such

arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to

the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody

beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—

(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or

(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for

preventive detention.

(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of

a person for a longer period than three months unless— (a) an Advisory

Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be

appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the

said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such

detention:

Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of any

person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by

Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or

(b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made

by Parliament under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).

(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of

a person for a longer period than two months unless an Advisory Board

constituted in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief Justice of

the appropriate High Court has reported before the expiration of the said

period of two months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such

detention:

Provided that an Advisory Board shall consist of a Chairman and not less

than two other members, and the Chairman shall be a serving Judge of the

appropriate High Court and the other members shall be serving or retired

Judges of any High Court:

Provided further that nothing in this clause shall authorise the detention of

any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by

Parliament under sub-clause (a) of clause (7).

Explanation.—In this clause, “appropriate High Court” means,—

(i) in the case of the detention of a person in pursuance of an order of

detention made by the Government of India or an officer or authority

subordinate to that Government, the High Court for the Union territory of

Delhi;

12

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

(ii) in the case of the detention of a person in pursuance of an order of

detention made by the Government of any State (other than a Union territory),

the High Court of that State; and

(iii) in the case of the detention of a person in pursuance of an order of

detention made by the administrator of a Union territory or an officer or

authority subordinate to such administrator, such High Court as may be

specified by or under any law made by Parliament in this behalf.

(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any

law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall,

as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the

order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a

representation against the order.

(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as

is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to

be against the public interest to disclose.

(7) Parliament may by law prescribe—

(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which,

a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under any

law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an

Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause

(4);

(b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of

cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and

(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under

sub-clause (a) of clause (4).

(7) Parliament may by law prescribe—

(a)] the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of

cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and (b)

the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under clause

(4).”

16. Therefore, depriving a person of his/her personal liberty by

arresting him/her otherwise to the established procedure of law is

not only the violation of statutory mandate of Cr.P.C. (Now BNSS),

but also constitutional right under Articles 21 and 22 of the

Constitution of India.

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court, again in the year 2015, in the case of

D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2015) 8 SCC

13

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

744, considering the issue regarding illegal detention as well as

custodial violence, issued directions to all the State Governments

as well as Union of India to install CCTV cameras at each and

every place in the premises of the police station as well as at the

place of investigation of other central agencies.

18. When the mandate of D.K. Basu (supra) issued in the year

2015 was not properly complied with, then the matter of illegal

arrest and custodial violence again came before the Apex Court in

the case of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra), wherein the Apex

Court, after considering the reply of the State Governments,

including the State of U.P., issued several directions, including

mandatory requirement of installing CCTV cameras at all entry,

and exit points, main gates of police station, all lock ups, all

corridors, all lobbies and reception area, including the Inspector

room, Sub-Inspector rooms, out houses and area outside the

lock-up rooms. The duty of upkeep and maintenance of CCTV

cameras in police stations has been assigned to the SHO of the

concerned police station. The Apex Court further directed to

constitute an SLOC as well as a DLOC. The Apex Court directed

that the SLOC shall be constituted by the Home Secretary,

Secretary; Finance Department and the Director General of

Police, and the DLOC shall be constituted by the Divisional

Commissioner, the District Magistrate, the District Superintendent

of Police, the Mayor of the Municipality or the Head of the

Panchayat in rural areas, with a further direction that though

SLOC will provide financial assistance to install CCTV cameras in

all the police stations, but it is the duty of the DLOC to ensure

continuous monitoring as well as repairing of the camera(s) on

receiving information from the concerned SHO and inform the

SLOC. It was also observed in the above directions that as soon

as the CCTV camera is found in fault, then the concerned SHO

shall make an entry in the register and immediately inform the

DLOC for repairing the CCTV camera. Paragraph nos.10, 11, 12,

14

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22 of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra)

are being quoted as under:

“10. So far as constitution of Oversight Committees in accordance with our

order dated 3-4-2018 [Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 5 SCC 311 :

(2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 704] is concerned, this should be done at the State and

district levels. The State Level Oversight Committee (hereinafter referred to as

“the SLOC”) must consist of:

(i) The Secretary/Additional Secretary, Home Department;

(ii) Secretary/Additional Secretary, Finance Department;

(iii) The Director General/Inspector General of Police; and

(iv) The Chairperson/member of the State Women's Commission.

11. So far as the District Level Oversight Committee (hereinafter referred to

as “DLOC”) is concerned, this should comprise of:

(I) The Divisional Commissioner/Commissioner of Divisions/Regional

Commissioner/Revenue Commissioner Division of the District (by whatever

name called);

(ii) The District Magistrate of the District;

(iii) A Superintendent of Police of that District; and

(iv) A mayor of a municipality within the District/a Head of the Zila

Panchayat in rural areas.

12. It shall be the duty of the SLOC to see that the directions passed by this

Court are carried out. Amongst others, the duties shall consist of:

(a) Purchase, distribution and installation of CCTVs and its equipment;

(b) Obtaining the budgetary allocation for the same;

(c) Continuous monitoring of maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its

equipment;

(d) Carrying out inspections and addressing the grievances received from the

DLOC; and

(e) To call for monthly reports from the DLOC and immediately address any

concerns like faulty equipment.

Likewise, the DLOC shall have the following obligations:

15

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

(a) Supervision, maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;

(b) Continuous monitoring of maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its

equipment;

(c) To interact with the Station House Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the

SHO”) as to the functioning and maintenance of CCTVs and its equipment;

and

(d) To send monthly reports to the SLOC about the functioning of CCTVs and

allied equipment.

(e) To review footage stored from CCTVs in the various police stations to

check for any human rights violation that may have occurred but are not

reported.

14. The duty and responsibility for the working, maintenance and recording of

CCTVs shall be that of the SHO of the police station concerned. It shall be the

duty and obligation of the SHO to immediately report to the DLOC any fault

with the equipment or malfunctioning of CCTVs. If the CCTVs are not

functioning in a particular police station, the SHO concerned shall inform the

DLOC of the arrest/interrogations carried out in that police station during the

said period and forward the said record to the DLOC. If the SHO concerned

has reported malfunctioning or non-functioning of CCTVs of a particular

police station, the DLOC shall immediately request the SLOC for repair and

purchase of the equipment, which shall be done immediately.

15. The Director General/Inspector General of Police of each State and

Union Territory should issue directions to the person in charge of a police

station to entrust the SHO of the police station concerned with the

responsibility of assessing the working condition of the CCTV cameras

installed in the police station and also to take corrective action to restore the

functioning of all non-functional CCTV cameras. The SHO should also be

made responsible for CCTV data maintenance, backup of data, fault

rectification, etc.

16. The State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV

cameras are installed in each and every police station functioning in the

respective State and/or Union Territory. Further, in order to ensure that no

part of a police station is left uncovered, it is imperative to ensure that CCTV

cameras are installed at all entry and exit points; main gate of the police

station; all lock-ups; all corridors; lobby/the reception area; all

verandahs/outhouses, Inspector's room; Sub-Inspector's room; areas outside

the lock-up room; station hall; in front of the police station compound; outside

(not inside) washrooms/toilets; Duty Officer's room; back part of the police

station, etc.

17. CCTV systems that have to be installed must be equipped with night vision

and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage. In areas in

which there is either no electricity and/or internet, it shall be the duty of the

States/Union Territories to provide the same as expeditiously as possible using

any mode of providing electricity, including solar/wind power. The internet

16

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

systems that are provided must also be systems which provide clear image

resolutions and audio. Most important of all is the storage of CCTV camera

footage which can be done in digital video recorders and/or network video

recorders. CCTV cameras must then be installed with such recording systems

so that the data that is stored thereon shall be preserved for a period of 18

months. If the recording equipment, available in the market today, does not

have the capacity to keep the recording for 18 months but for a lesser period

of time, it shall be mandatory for all States, Union Territories and the Central

Government to purchase one which allows storage for the maximum period

possible, and, in any case, not below 1 year. It is also made clear that this will

be reviewed by all the States so as to purchase equipment which is able to

store the data for 18 months as soon as it is commercially available in the

market. The affidavit of compliance to be filed by all States and Union

Territories and Central Government shall clearly indicate that the best

equipment available as of date has been purchased.

18. Whenever there is information of force being used at police stations

resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons

be free to complain for a redressal of the same. Such complaints may not only

be made to the State Human Rights Commission, which is then to utilise its

powers, more particularly under Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of

Human Rights Act, 1993, for redressal of such complaints, but also to Human

Rights Courts, which must then be set up in each district of every State/Union

Territory under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act. The Commission/Court can

then immediately summon CCTV camera footage in relation to the incident for

its safe keeping, which may then be made available to an investigating agency

in order to further process the complaint made to it.

21. The SLOC and the COB (where applicable) shall give directions to all

police stations, investigative/enforcement agencies to prominently display at

the entrance and inside the police stations/offices of investigative/enforcement

agencies about the coverage of the premises concerned by CCTV. This shall

be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language. In

addition to the above, it shall be clearly mentioned therein that a person has a

right to complain about human rights violations to the National/State Human

Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the Superintendent of Police or

any other authority empowered to take cognizance of an offence. It shall

further mention that CCTV footage is preserved for a certain minimum time

period, which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has a right to

have the same secured in the event of violation of his human rights.

22. Since these directions are in furtherance of the fundamental rights of each

citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and since

nothing substantial has been done in this regard for a period of over 2½ years

since our first order dated 3-4-2018 [Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P.,

(2018) 5 SCC 311 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 704], the

Executive/Administrative/police authorities are to implement this order both

in letter and in spirit as soon as possible. Affidavits will be filed by the

Principal Secretary/Cabinet Secretary/Home Secretary of each State/Union

Territory giving this Court a firm action plan with exact timelines for

compliance with today's order. This is to be done within a period of six weeks

from today.”

17

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

19. From the above directions issued in Paramvir Singh Saini’s

case (supra), it is also clear that there was a specific direction

that the storage capacity of CCTV camera footage should be such

that it can retain the footage for at least 18 months, with a further

direction that till the technology is available for storing CCTV

footage for 18 months, it should be preserved up to 6 months. The

SOP issued by the Director General of Police, U.P. in May, 2021,

prescribed the maintenance of CCTV footage, but by the DG

Circular dated 20.06.2025, it was directed that CCTV footage

should be maintained up to 2-2½ months, which itself is contrary to

judgement of Apex Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini

(supra).

20. As of date, not properly maintaining the CCTV camera has

become a routine feature in several police stations of U.P., which

is seriously affecting the personal liberty of persons who were

illegally taken into custody by the police.

21. The facts of the present case show that the police officers at

the level of the Inspector, disregarding the order of the CJM, who

is the head of the Magistracy in the District Court, though the CJM

or any Judicial Officer, while discharging his duty as a Judicial

Officer, is much above the administrative and executive officers,

and his role can be equivalent to that of the legislature and

political executive (ministers).

22. The Apex Court in the case of All India Judges Association

Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 546,

has also observed that the Judges are not comparable with the

administrative and executive officers. They discharge sovereign

state function and just like the Council of Ministers or political

executive, their service is different from the secretarial staff or

administrative executive, which carries out the decisions of the

political executive. Therefore, they are only comparable with

18

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

political executive and legislature. Therefore, it is clear that while

a Judicial Officer (may be the Judicial Officer of Junior Division) is

discharging his judicial function, he is above to the District

Magistrate or District Police Chief and even to political head of a

State. Anyone entering his Court has to give respect to the Chair

of the concerned Judicial Magistrate and disregarding the order of

Judicial Magistrate is not only the contempt of Court, but also

challenging the authority of law, as they are discharging their duty

to uphold the rule of law. District Judicial Officers are the first who

grant relief to a common person. Therefore, they are the

backbone of the judiciary, and disrespecting or disregarding the

judicial orders passed by the judicial officers in the District Courts

is absolutely unpardonable and deserves to be punished, being

contempt of their Courts;

23. Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short ‘the

Act of 1971’) provides that the High Court has the authority to

punish for contempt of subordinate courts. Therefore, if any order

of Judicial Officer of a District Court has not been complied or

disobeyed, then the High Court, in exercise of its power u/s 10 of

the Act of 1971, can punish the contemnor for the contempt of the

Subordinate Court.

24. In the present case, both the officers have admitted their fault

to disregard the orders dated 22.09.2025, 30.09.2025 and

03.11.2025 passed by the CJM, Lalitpur and also offered

unconditional apology. Therefore, this Court, instead of sending

this matter to the regular Contempt Court, itself proceeded with

against both the officers, namely, Narendra Singh and Anurag

Awasthi. Therefore, this Court holds both the officers guilty of

contempt of the court of CJM, Lalitpur for deliberate non-

compliance of his orders dated 22.09.2025, 30.09.2025 and

03.11.2025 but taking lenient view so far as the sentence is

concerned, the Court sentences them to remain in custody till

19

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

rising of this Court. The Court Officer, High Court, Allahabad is

directed to take both these officers into custody and they shall be

released after 4:00 pm today. They are further warned that in

future, any disobedience of the orders passed by judicial officers

of the District Court on their part shall be dealt with strictly, in

accordance with law.

25. This Court further directs the Director General of Police,

U.P., Lucknow to look into this issue and take appropriate

action against erring police officers, in accordance with law.

26. This Court, considering the fact that CCTV cameras installed

at police stations, are not being regularly checked by the DLOC or

senior police officials, despite the directions of the Apex Court in

the case of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) which is the law of

land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India that is binding

not only on the Courts, but on all the police officers. If a police

officer fails to discharge his duty to comply with the directions of

the Apex Court, then it is the paramount duty of the judicial

officers to see whether the directions of the Apex Court has been

complied with by the police officer in letter and spirit or not.

27. Therefore, this Court further observed that the CJMs of all

the districts or the concerned Magistrates may randomly

check the police stations, under their respective jurisdictions

after court hours regarding the working of CCTV cameras in

police stations, with prior intimation to their District Judge,

and if the CJM or the Judicial Magistrate having territorial

jurisdiction over the concerned police station inspects the

concerned police station to check the CCTV camera to verify

whether the directions of the Apex Court in the case of

Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) has been complied that would

be considered as part of his/her official duty. During this

inspection, all the police officials shall cooperate with him

20

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

and any hinderance or disrespect to any judicial officer will

be dealt with strictly.

28. In the case of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra), Hon’ble Apex

Court has also observed that in the case of custodial violence,

complaint may be made to Human Rights Courts established

under Section 30 of Human Rights Act, 1993 (Act No.X of 1994)

and Human Rights Court can immediately summon the CCTV

footage in relation to incident for safe upkeeping and same may

be made available to the Investigating Agency for the purpose of

determining Human Rights violation. The Allahabad High Court by

Notification dated 02.05.2005 has already notified senior most

Additional District Judge in the district judgeship as Human Rights

Court and in absence of court of Additional District & Sessions

Judge, the Court of District Judge. The Notification dated

02.05.2005 is being quoted as under:

UTTAR PRADESH SHASAN

NYAYA ANUBHAG-8 (LEKHA)

NOTIFICATION

MISCELLANEOUS

No: A-20/VII-Nyaya-8-05-36G-2000

Lucknow, Dated May 02, 2005

In exercise of the powers under section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights

Act, 1993 ( Act No. X of 1994) read with Section 21 of the General Clauses

Act, 1894 (Act No. X of 1894) And in Supersession of Government

notification no. 2688/VII-Nyaya-2-169G-94, Dated September 25,1995 the

Governor, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad, is pleased to specify that the Courts as mentioned in

the Schedule below shall be the Human Rights Court to try offences arising

out of violation of Human Rights within the respective local limits of the

districts.

Schedule

Sl. No. Court

1

2

The court of Senior Most Additional District & Session Judge of

every district.

The court of District & Session Judge where there is no court of

Additional District & Sessions Judge

By-order,

(Dhram Veer Sharma)

Principal Secretary

21

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

29. From the above discussion, it is clear that Human Rights

Court at every district can entertain complaint regarding

violation of Human Rights which also includes illegal

detention by police or custodial violence in police station and

proceed in accordance of law.

30. This Court is aware about the judgement of the Apex Court in

the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari

Court, Delhi Vs. State of Gujarat And Others reported in

1991(4) SCC 406, wherein, the Apex Court has observed that a

judicial officer should not visit the police station, except in

connection with his official or judicial duty and function, and for

that reason, this Court is making the inspection by a Judicial

Magistrate or CJM, of police stations, for checking the working of

CCTV cameras, in compliance with the order of Apex Court in

Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) as part of their official duty.

31. Now, coming to the present case, it is clear, from the facts

discussed above, that the present applicant was illegally detained

by the earlier I.O., Sri Kamlesh Kumar and for that reason, he as

well as his successor Sri Narendra Singh, Inspector and S.H.O.

Sri Anurag Awasthi failed to provide the CCTV footage to the

CJM. When the sister of the applicant filed an application for

anticipatory bail as well as an application on 16.09.2025 before

the CJM, complaining of the illegal arrest of the applicant, only

then his formal arrest was shown on 17.09.2025. Even the

information of arrest of the applicant was not given to the family

members of the applicant. The memo of information produced by

the learned AGA shows that information regarding arrest dated

17.09.2025 was given to the father of the applicant by taking his

signature, but no date was mentioned in the said memo.

Therefore, the arrest of the applicant from 14.09.2025 to

16.09.2025 shall be considered illegal.

22

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

32. Therefore, this Court further directs the State Government to

pay compensation of Rs.1 lac to the applicant in lieu of his illegal

detention, and the State Government is at liberty to recover the

same from the salary of the persons responsible for the illegal

detention of the applicant.

33. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that his client

was illegally detained on 14.09.2025, and his formal arrest was

shown on 17.09.2025. The information of his arrest itself was not

given to his family members, immediately after his formal arrest,

which was shown as 17.09.2025. Therefore, on this ground itself,

the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. It is further

submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he is willingly

offering to pay Rs.15 lakhs to the Bajaj Finance Limited, as there

appears to be some negligence on his part being empanelled in

DSA of Finance Company of first informant and he undertakes

that within 15 days from his release, he will return the aforesaid

amount to the Bajaj Finance Limited. He has further requested

that the concerned Bank where the applicant is having his

account may be directed to permit transfer of the aforesaid

amount in the account of the Bajaj Finance Limited as his account

has been seized.

34. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,

submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in

view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused

and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of

criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the

mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil

Wadhawan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in

2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 and without expressing any opinion

on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is

entitled to be enlarged on bail.

23

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

35. Let the applicant- Sanu @ Rashid, involved in the

aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a

personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts

to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely

without seeking any adjournment.

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or

commission of any crime after being released on bail.

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of

the bond executed by him.

v. The applicant as per his undertaking will transfer Rs.15 lacs to

the Finance Company of the first informant.

36. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

ground for cancellation of bail.

37. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and

sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are

accepted.

38. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the

basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from

the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the

concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will

be filed within 15 days.

39. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release

order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management

System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

24

BAIL No. - 3821 of 2026

40. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant

through concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison

portal in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of

Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ

Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in

(2024) 10 SCC 685.

41. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this

order to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow and all

District Judges of U.P., for necessary compliance.

Ref : Criminal Misc. Correction Application No.2 of 2026 :

42. Heard learned counsel for the applicant in support of this

application.

43. The correction application is allowed.

44. Let the date "14.09.2025" appearing in the fourth line of the

second paragraph of the order dated 04.02.2026 be treated to be

deleted and read as "14/15.09.2025".

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

February 19, 2026

S.C.