While finding contradiction in the police’s version in respect of CCTV cameras installed inside the police station, the Madhya Pradesh High Court just recently in a judgment titled Vicky S/o Jaipaldas Pariyani v. the State of MP has granted bail to an accused in connection with an NDPS case while observing clearly, cogently and convincingly that while the police nowadays rely on the use of CCTV footages and digital information, it shies of divulging details when it comes to their own functioning.
Background of the Case
This is the first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he/she is implicated in connection with a case registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant was in custody since 08/12/2020.
Cases of both Parties
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated in the case as he was not arrested on 07/12/2020 and in fact, he was called by the police in the police station and was arrested in connection with the aforesaid offence. It was further submitted that to demonstrate that he was called by the police prior to the incident, the applicant has also applied for CCTV footage under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. of the police station Vijay Nagar, Indore, however, it was informed by the police station Vijay Nagar on 05/06/2021 that the CCTV footage could not be provided to the applicant as the same was kept saved only for 6-7 days, hence, it was already deleted, however, the learned Judge again directed the SHO of the police station Vijay Nagar, Indore to submit a specific reply in this regard and pursuant thereto, on 23/06/2021, it was informed to the learned Judge of the Trial Court that since the CCTV footages were saved only for 6-7 days in the police station but its copies were saved in the record room, hence, further time was sought and thereafter again the matter came up before the Court on 25/06/2021, wherein it was informed that the CCTV footage are available only for 15 days and thereafter they are automatically deleted. Hence, due to the efflux of time, the footage as sought by the applicant cannot be provided.
Shri Gupta, counsel for the applicant submitted that the aforesaid stand taken by the police was contrary to their own stand which was taken by them in respect of CCTV footage of the same date in another case which was registered at crime No.1052/2020 which relates to an offence under Section 376(2)(n), 450, 366 and 34 of the IPC and in that case also when the application was filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for obtaining the CCTV footage from 18/12/2020 till 23/12/2020, the reply of the police station Vijay Nagar was that their CCTV camera is not working since 07/12/2020.
While the Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer, and it was submitted that no case for grant of bail was made out. However, so far as the stand taken by the police station Vijay Nagar, Indore in two different places in respect of the CCTV footage of the same set of dates, counsel submitted that it was a matter of record only.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court made a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Soni Vs. Baljit Singh and others, which were to the effect that,
"“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 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. The affidavit of compliance to be filed by all States and Union Territories and Central Government shall clearly indicate that the best equipment available as of date has been purchased.
21. The SLOC and the COB (where applicable) shall give directions to all police stations, investigative/enforcement agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside the police stations/offices of investigative/enforcement agencies about the coverage of the premises concerned by CCTV. This shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language. In addition to the above, it shall be clearly mentioned therein that a person has a right to complain about human rights violations to the National/State Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered to take cognizance of an offence. It shall further mention that CCTV footage is preserved for a certain minimum time period, which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has a right to have the same secured in the event of violation of his human rights.
22. Since these directions are in furtherance of the fundamental rights of each citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and since nothing substantial has been done in this regard for a period of over 2½ years since our first order dated 3-4-2018, the Executive/Administrative/police authorities are to implement this order both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible. Affidavits will be filed by the Principal Secretary/Cabinet Secretary/Home Secretary of each State/Union Territory giving this Court a firm action plan with exact timelines for compliance with today’s order. This is to be done within a period of six weeks from today.” (emphasis supplied).”
Testing on the anvil of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, the High Court agreed with the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant, and observed that,
the false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage despite the fact that from his possession, the contraband is alleged to have been recovered. It is rather interesting to note that due to technical advancement, the police, nowadays relies heavily upon the digital information viz., tower locations, call details, CCTV footages, WhatsApp chats, emails etc. to connect the accused persons with the offence, but when it comes to their own working, it shies of from divulging the details, and that is done only when you have something to hide. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, when the police has two diametrically opposite stands in respect of the CCTV camera installed in the police station and same is also contrary to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Paramvir Singh (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant's application deserves to be allowed by giving him the benefit of doubt.”
Held
“Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her regular appearance before the trial Court during the trial with a condition that he/she shall remain present before the court concerned during the trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.”
Case Details
Case Name: Vicky S/o Jaipaldas Pariyani Vs State of MP
Case No.: M.Cr.C. No. 24825/2021
Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Read Order
SOURCE ; .latestlaws.com
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments