01Facts
Petitioner No. 1, the daughter of the corpus (Petitioner No. 2), alleged that police personnel took him from outside Police Station Nangal on 5 September 2026, while his formal arrest was recorded on 7 September 2026.
¶ 2, 7–9The arrest related to an FIR registered against him and others alleging a “honey trap”.
¶ 6The High Court directed the State to produce police-station CCTV footage for the relevant period.
¶ 9The State reported that the footage was unavailable because a thunderstorm had allegedly caused water to enter and damage the CCTV system.
¶ 9–1002Issues
i.Whether Petitioner No. 2 had been unlawfully detained from 5 September 2026 until his formal arrest on 7 September 2026.
¶ 2, 7–9, 13ii.Whether the reported failure to produce the CCTV footage justified an adverse inference regarding the alleged detention.
¶ 9–1203Law Applied
The Court applied the habeas corpus jurisdiction to determine whether the corpus’s detention was lawful.
It stated that, in a case alleging unlawful detention, a CCTV-malfunction explanation was not an acceptable basis for withholding relevant footage; it treated such an explanation as sufficient to support the petitioners’ claim and to infer that footage had been deliberately withheld because it was adverse to the respondents.
¶ 12The judgment cited no specific statutory provision or precedent.
Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115Section 352Section 351
04Reasoning
The petitioners alleged that Petitioner No. 2 was taken from outside the police station on 5 September, although his formal arrest was recorded two days later.
¶ 7–9The Court had ordered production of CCTV footage covering the relevant period, but the State said it was unavailable due to a system failure.
¶ 9–10Rejecting that explanation in the context of the unlawful-detention claim, the Court inferred that the footage had been deliberately withheld and accepted the petitioners’ contention that the corpus had been unlawfully detained.
¶ 11–1305Holding
The Court allowed the petition and ordered Petitioner No. 2’s immediate release, unless he was wanted in another case.
¶ 13The Court directed the State to pay the petitioners costs of ₹20,000 within seven days.
¶ 15The Court also recorded its displeasure concerning the non-production of CCTV footage, directed that it be entered in the SHO’s service records, and stated that her continuation in her post should be considered by the State.
¶ 14The petitioners were left at liberty to pursue compensation through other legal avenues.
¶ 13Original Court PDF
Misba Naaz And AnothervsState Of U.P. And 4 Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
