The Allahabad High Court criticised the Uttar Pradesh Police over the non-production of police station CCTV footage in a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention of a man in Bijnor. The court ordered his release if he was not wanted in another case and directed the state to pay the petitioners Rs 20,000.In its order dated November 3, the court raised concern over infringement of fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens becoming a routine for the Uttar Pradesh Police.A division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev stated, “The situation that exists in the State of Uttar Pradesh relating to the civil liberty is shameful, to say the least. The police appear to have little regard for the fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens, and the infringement of these rights seems to have become a matter of routine for the UP Police.”The petition was filed by a rape victim alleging that a local police station in Bijnor illegally detained her father on September 5, but formally recorded his arrest two days later on September 7 in an extortion case.The plot of illegal detentionShe alleged that her father received a phone call instructing him to report to the police station regarding a case registered against him. Upon arriving in a car with relatives around 2.30 pm on September 5, he called the Station House Officer (SHO) while seated inside the vehicle. At that exact moment, a Mahindra Bolero pulled up near the police station gate. Four individuals—allegedly plainclothes police personnel—exited the vehicle, forcibly dragged her father out of his car, bundled him into the Bolero, and sped away from the scene.Also read | Detained over a day without court date? Supreme Court says ‘must be released’A relative accompanying the petitioner’s father attempted to record the incident on his mobile phone, but he was allegedly stopped by the police. The relative then alerted the Police Helpline – UP 112.However, the petitioner stated that the police formally recorded her father’s arrest only on September 7.Story continues below this adAfter hearing the grievance of the petitioner, the court ordered the production of the CCTV recordings of the concerned police station from 1 pm on September 5 to 10 am on September 7.During the hearing, the government counsel informed the court that the CCTV footage was not available as a thunderstorm on September 5 caused rainwater to trickle down the LAN cable into the CCTV system, causing a total system failure.The court firmly rejected the excuse, observing a pattern where police routinely offer standard excuses for missing CCTV footage to obfuscate illegal detentions. The court ruled that such excuses are unavailable to the police and held that missing footage leads to a legal presumption of unlawful custody.Also Read | Madras High Court orders release of illegally detained cop in Rs 24-crore extortion caseThe petitioners have prayed for costs of the petition, which is fixed at Rs 20,000, which shall be paid by the state to the petitioners within seven days, failing which the petitioners shall be at liberty to revive the petition for the purpose of compliance, the bench directed.Story continues below this adThe court also stated that the current in-charge of the local police station deliberately did not provide the CCTV footage relevant to decide the case. “This court records its displeasure, which shall be entered into the service records of the in-charge, and the state government should consider the further continuation on the present post,” the bench said.Sexual assault and blackmailAccording to the victim, the ordeal began in June this year when a classmate and distant relative lured her to a hotel under the pretext of having a meal, where he allegedly spiked her food with intoxicants, sexually assaulted her, and recorded obscene photos and videos. On June 26, when her family confronted him to demand the deletion of the explicit material, the accused arrived at her home with 8 to 10 armed accomplices, verbally abusing and threatening the family. Although her father immediately approached the local police, no action was taken. Instead, the police registered a cross-case of assault and criminal intimidation against her father and family members based on a counter-complaint filed by the accused three days later. It was only on July 8 that the victim finally succeeded in getting her sexual assault FIR formally registered.