Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a bail application for alleged offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), where the applicant argued that he was falsely implicated after being arrested earlier, and the police failed to produce CCTV footage from the police station to substantiate their actions, a single-judge bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., allowed the bail application and disposed of the case with directions to ensure proper compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines regarding CCTV camera maintenance. The Court emphasised on police accountability and the importance of CCTV footage in upholding justice and protecting citizens’ rights.
In the instant matter, the applicant was charged under the NDPS Act and sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The applicant contended that they were arrested earlier than the official arrest record and that a false case was lodged against them while in police custody.
The Court, vide order dated 11-09-2-24, allowed the bail application, based on lapses by the police in providing CCTV footage. However, the case was not disposed of entirely, as the Court chose to investigate the broader issue of how CCTV footage is managed and maintained in police stations.
The Court referenced Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2021) 1 SCC 184, which mandates the installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras in police stations to protect citizens’ fundamental rights and prevent police misconduct. The Court noted that although the police had complied with the Supreme Court’s order in Paramvir Singh Saini (Supra) by installing CCTV cameras and issuing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), the implementation was lacking.
The Court noted that the SOPs included several levels of supervision, including district and state-level oversight committees (DLOC and SLOC), but no clear penal consequences were outlined for non-compliance, aside from a superficial disciplinary action. The Court observed that the existing provisions for disciplinary action are inadequate and were merely an “eye wash” to make any impact on the police officer concerned.
The Court criticized the existing SOP, calling it insufficient for holding officers accountable for failing to maintain CCTV footage. The Court stated that the proposed disciplinary actions are seen as a mere formality, without sufficient deterrence. The Court emphasised that failure to maintain CCTVs and adhere to SOPs would render these measures ineffective, undermining justice and accountability. The Court stated that
“…the CCTV cameras in the police stations have been directed to be installed with a view to ensure that the fundamental rights of the citizens are protected, and to prevent police atrocities in the police station/custody, thus, any negligence or dereliction of duties to carry out the aforesaid procedure shall be treated as a serious lapse in performing the duties.”
The Court —
-
Directed that a departmental inquiry be initiated against any officer responsible for failing to provide CCTV footage as required by law. If officers are found guilty of negligence, it should be treated as a major misconduct, and they should be punished accordingly.
-
Instructed the State Level and District Level Oversight Committees (SLOC and DLOC) to meet at least once a month to ensure compliance with the SOPs, and minutes of these meetings must be recorded.
-
Suggested that the State Government should consider providing body cameras to police personnel, especially in major cities, in addition to increasing police numbers.
With the above-mentioned directions, the Court disposed of the bail application and closed the case.
[Nirmal v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5654, Decided on 19-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Abhishek Rathore, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Apoorv Joshi, Govt. Advocate with Shri Vijay Khatri, Senior Superintendent of Police (Radio), Bhopal, Counsel for the Respondent/State