Smt. Ratna Roy vs The State of Tripura and Others
- Court
- Tripura High Court
TRHC010007732026
Page 1 of 7
2026:THC:1285-DB
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(Crl.) No.06 of 2026
Ratna Roy, W/o Sri Sankar Saha, R/o Ward No.21, Banamalipur, Agartala,
P.O. Agartala Post Office, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura, PIN-
799001
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
1. The State of Tripura to be represented by Secretary, Department of Home,
Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. The Director General of Police, Tripura, O/o the Director General of Police,
Tripura, Police Head Quarters, Fire Brigade Chowmuhani, P.O. Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN-799001
3. The Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District, Office of the
Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District, Agartala, Akhaura Road, near
Fire Brigade Chowmuhani, PIN-799001
4. The Officer-in-Charge, East Agartala Police Station, Banamalipur,
Agartala, Tripura, PIN-799001
5. The Officer-in-Charge, East Agartala Women Police Station, Banamalipur,
Agartala, Tripura, PIN-799001
6. The Agartala Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner
7. Sri Rabindranath Ghosh, an employee of the Agartala Municipal
Corporation
.........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborti, Advocate General,
Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor,
Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate,
Ms. Priyanka Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Date of hearing : 01.09.2026
Date of Judgment & Order : 17.09.2026
Whether Fit for Reporting : YES
TRHC010007732026
Page 2 of 7
2026:THC:1285-DB
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
In this matter, this Court had passed a detailed Order on
02.07.2026 in relation to an incident which happened on 04.04.2026 where the
son of the petitioner by name Saikat Saha was forcibly taken by one
Rabindranath Ghosh, an employee of the Agartala Municipal Corporation and
one Joy Debnath (a Special Police Officer) to the East Agartala Police Station,
and in the presence of the police personnel on the intervening nights of
04.04.2026 and 05.04.2026, he was assaulted, humiliated and tortured.
2. The said incidents were recorded in CCTV cameras which were
directed to be seized by this Court by an Order passed in this case on
06.05.2026.
3. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was also constituted on
14.05.2026 headed by an Inspector General of Police.
4. The SIT filed a report on 16.06.2026 confirming the allegations
leveled by the petitioner against Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath prima
facie.
5. The Home Secretary, Government of Tripura also filed a Counter
Affidavit stating that police officials of the East Agartala Police Station were
issued show cause notices, and were placed under suspension, and
Departmental proceedings were initiated against them.
6. The services of Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath appear to
have been terminated subsequently, and a charge sheet has been filed against
both of them in the jurisdictional criminal court.
TRHC010007732026
Page 3 of 7
2026:THC:1285-DB
7. But this Court held in the Order dt.02.07.2026 that it is desirable
to monitor the investigation by the SIT.
8. The matter was again listed on 25.08.2026.
9. The Status Report dt.21.08.2026 filed by the SIT was perused on
25.08.2026 which indicated that a charge sheet had been filed against both the
accused in the jurisdictional Criminal Court after the filing of the Final Report
stating that the case was non-cognizable.
10. On 25.08.2026, this Court also directed the respondents to place
on record what action has been initiated against the Officer-in-Charge of the
East Agartala Police Station, and also against the policemen, who were on
duty in the said Police Station, when the alleged assault on the son of the
petitioner took place on 04.04.2026.
11. The Deputy Secretary of the Home Department, Government of
Tripura has filed an affidavit dt.29.08.2026 stating that articles of charge have
been framed against the Officer-in-Charge and other policemen after placing
them under suspension and the said proceedings are continuing.
12. We may point out that this Court was able to intervene effectively
in the matter only because there was CCTV footage available on what
transpired inside the East Agartala Police Station on the intervening nights of
04.04.2026 and 05.04.2026.
13. However we have noticed that another case W.P.(Crl).
No.10/2026 which had come up for consideration before us, though similar
assault was alleged to have taken place at police station, the CCTV footage
was not available, and it was brought to our notice that three days before the
TRHC010007732026
Page 4 of 7
2026:THC:1285-DB
date of the incident and three days after the date of the incident, the CCTV
inside the police station was non-functional.
14. This aspect came to light during the hearing of W.P.(Crl.)
No.10/2026 in Smt. Lipika Lodh v. The State of Tripura & Others .
15. To ensure that this does not occur again, we therefore deem it
appropriate to deal with this issue.
Judgment of Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh &
Others:
16. In this regard, we may take note of the judgment of the Supreme
1
Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others .
17. The directions given in regard to installation of CCTVs in all
police stations in that judgment are as under:
“ 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 verandas/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 systems that are provided
must also be systems which provide clear image resolutions and
1
Judgment dt.02.12.2020 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3543 of 2020
TRHC010007732026
Page 5 of 7
2026:THC:1285-DB
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.... ” (emphasis supplied)
18. More importantly, the Supreme Court directed the Finance
Department of the respective State Governments to allocate adequate funds for
the same, and make it the responsibility of the Station House Officer (SHO) of
the police station concerned to ensure that the CCTVs are working, and are in
proper condition .
19. The said directions are contained in the following paragraphs of
Paramvir Singh Saini (1 Supra):
“ 13. It is obvious that none of this can be done without allocation of
adequate funds for the same, which must be done by the States'/Union
Territories' Finance Departments at the very earliest.
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 concerned SHO 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
concerned SHO has reported malfunctioning or non-functioning of
CCTVs of a particular Police Station, the DLOC shall immediately
TRHC010007732026
Page 6 of 7
2026:THC:1285-DB
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 concerned Police Station
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. ”
(emphasis supplied)
20. In a proceeding reported on “Live Law” legal portal on
04.09.2026, there is reference to certain observations of the Supreme Court
wherein the Supreme Court observed with regard to availability of funds being
paid by the Union Government under the Assistance to States and Union
Territories for Modernization of Police (ASUMP) scheme.
Consideration by the Court:
21. We therefore direct that the said directions of the Supreme Court
in Paramvir Singh Saini (1 Supra) shall be implemented in letter and spirit by
the respondents, who shall not only install CCTVs in the police stations as
directed in the said judgment, but also make the Officer-in-Charge of the
police station concerned responsible for their working, maintenance and
recording.
22. If the CCTVs are not functioning in a particular police station,
the concerned Officer-in-Charge of P.S. has to inform the District Level
Oversight Committee (DLOC) headed by Divisional Commissioner and others
of the arrest/interrogation carried out in that police station during the said
period, and forward the said record to the DLOC without fail.
TRHC010007732026
Page 7 of 7
2026:THC:1285-DB
23. If the concerned Officer-in-Charge of P.S. has reported
malfunctioning or non-functioning of CCTVs of a particular police station, the
said Committee shall immediately request the State Level Oversight
Committee (SLOC) for repair and purchase of the equipment, which shall be
done immediately.
24. The Officer-in-Charge of P.S. has to be made responsible for the
CCTV data maintenance, backup of data, fault rectification, etc.
25. Reiterating the previous Orders passed in this Writ Petition, and
giving the directions as contained in this Order, this Writ Petition being
W.P.(Crl.) No.06/2026 is disposed of.
(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pijush/
PIJUSH KANTI NAG
Digitally signed by PIJUSH KANTI NAG
Date: 2026.09.17 13:19:50 +05'30'