Writ for CCTV preservation rejected where underlying motor vehicle proceedings conclude with a voluntary admission of guilt.

The petitioner’s son and a friend were intercepted by police on the night of February 28, 2026, and taken to Police Station Belbag

The petitioner alleged that his son was illegally detained, subjected to a bribe demand of Rs. 25,000, and physically harassed without a breath analyzer test or adherence to arrest guidelines

It was further alleged that police fabricated evidence of drunken driving by forcing consumption of liquor and planting a bottle in the vehicle

Conversely, the State maintained that the son was driving rashly under the influence, refused the breath analyzer, and was subsequently confirmed to be intoxicated by a medico-legal examination (MLC) at Victoria Hospital

On February 28, 2026, the petitioner’s son admitted guilt before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and paid a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the preservation and production of CCTV footage from the police station to prove misconduct

Whether the court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to direct the preservation and supply of CCTV footage and the DVR system from the police station in light of allegations of custodial misconduct

The court considered Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which penalizes driving under the influence of alcohol

It reviewed the petitioner’s reliance on D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which establish procedural safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention

Furthermore, it evaluated the mandate for CCTV preservation in police stations established in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2021) 1 SCC 184 to ensure police accountability

The court reasoned that the material evidence, specifically the MLC report and the son’s admission of guilt before the JMFC, clearly established that the petitioner’s son was driving under the influence of alcohol

The court emphasized that drunken driving is a serious threat to public safety and contributes significantly to road accidents, justifying strict police enforcement

Regarding the demand for CCTV footage, the court found that since the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act had already concluded with an admission of guilt and no prima facie evidence of deliberate police non-compliance was presented, the judicial precedents regarding arrest guidelines and CCTV preservation were not applicable to the current facts

The court concluded that the police action was a justified exercise of statutory duty to protect the public

The court held that no ground was warranted for the direction to preserve or produce CCTV footage or the DVR system because the underlying criminal matter had concluded with a plea of guilt and the allegations of misconduct lacked sufficient prima facie backing in the face of the medical evidence

Relief was denied