The Allahabad High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, to conduct an inquiry into allegations of illegal detention and theft of jewellery worth ₹14 lakh, cash and other articles from a person at Police Station Hasanganj in Unnao district. The direction was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani while hearing a criminal writ petition in which the petitioner alleged that he had been illegally detained at the police station for several days without any prosecution being initiated against him. The allegations also concerned the alleged removal of valuable articles from the petitioner while he was in police custody. The Court, after considering the allegations and the reliefs sought in the petition, found that the matter required consideration and directed the Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry into the allegations.
The petitioner alleged that he was illegally detained at Police Station Hasanganj from July 27 to July 30, 2026. According to the allegations placed before the High Court, despite the period of detention, no prosecution had been initiated against him. The petition therefore raised the issue of the legality of his detention and the circumstances in which he was kept at the police station. The petitioner also alleged that during this period, police personnel and opposite party number 7 had taken away several valuable articles belonging to him. The alleged articles included jewellery stated to be worth ₹14 lakh, cash amounting to ₹35,000, two mobile phones and approximately 15 cartridges.
The allegations concerning the alleged theft were specifically placed before the High Court as part of the petition. The petitioner claimed that the jewellery, cash, mobile phones and cartridges had been taken from him during the period connected with his alleged detention at the police station. The allegations were made against police personnel as well as opposite party number 7. The petitioner sought appropriate intervention from the High Court concerning the alleged illegal detention and the alleged removal of his property.
Among the reliefs sought by the petitioner was a direction to the concerned authorities to preserve the CCTV footage of Police Station Hasanganj for the relevant period. The petitioner sought preservation of the footage covering the period from July 27 to July 30, 2026, and also sought a direction that the CCTV footage be produced before the High Court. The request for preservation of the footage was made in the context of the allegations concerning the petitioner's detention and the alleged removal of jewellery, cash and other articles.
The High Court considered the allegations made in the petition as well as the prayers seeking preservation and production of the CCTV footage. The Bench recorded that, in view of the allegations and the reliefs sought, the matter required consideration. The Court therefore issued notice to opposite parties number 6 and 7 and granted the State three weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit in response to the petition.
While the proceedings continue, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner. The inquiry was specifically directed to examine the allegations concerning the petitioner's detention and the alleged removal of his property. The direction placed responsibility upon the Superintendent of Police to inquire into the allegations and submit the outcome before the High Court along with the required material.
The Court specifically directed the Superintendent of Police to examine the CCTV footage of Police Station Hasanganj for the relevant period. The footage relating to the period from July 27 to July 30, 2026, was required to be examined as part of the inquiry. The Court further directed that the CCTV footage be preserved. The preservation direction was significant because the petitioner had specifically sought the footage and alleged that it would be relevant to establishing the circumstances surrounding his detention and the alleged incidents at the police station.
In addition to examining and preserving the CCTV footage, the Superintendent of Police was directed to produce the footage before the High Court along with the inquiry report. The Court therefore required the CCTV material and the findings of the inquiry to be placed before it. The inquiry report was to address the allegations raised in the petition, while the CCTV footage was to provide the relevant recorded material from the police station for the period specified by the Court.
The High Court also gave a specific direction concerning any incriminating material that might emerge during the inquiry. The Court directed that if any incriminating material was found against any police personnel, appropriate action should be taken against the concerned police personnel by the Superintendent of Police, Unnao. Thus, the inquiry was not limited merely to examining the allegations or preparing a report. The order also contemplated appropriate action if the inquiry revealed incriminating material against police personnel.
The State was granted three weeks to file its counter-affidavit. The Court further directed that the counter-affidavit should be accompanied by an affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Unnao. This requirement connects the State's response with the inquiry directed by the Court and requires the Superintendent of Police to place the relevant findings before the Court through an affidavit.
The matter was ordered to be listed thereafter. The High Court will therefore consider the proceedings further after the State files its counter-affidavit and the Superintendent of Police submits the inquiry report along with the preserved CCTV footage. The Court's order leaves the allegations to be examined through the inquiry process and does not make a final determination at this stage regarding the truth of the allegations made by the petitioner.
The petition was filed by Ram Kumar against the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow, and others. The case was heard as a criminal writ petition before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani. The petitioner was represented by advocates O.P. Tiwari, Beer Prakash, Pavan Kumar and Sunil Kumar Bajpai, while the State was represented by the Government Advocate.
The allegations placed before the Court concerned events at Police Station Hasanganj in Unnao district. According to the petitioner, his detention continued from July 27 to July 30, 2026, and no prosecution was initiated against him during that period. The petitioner connected the alleged detention with his further allegation that jewellery, cash, mobile phones and cartridges were taken by police personnel and opposite party number 7. The value of the jewellery alleged to have been taken was stated to be ₹14 lakh.
The petitioner therefore sought judicial intervention not only regarding the alleged detention but also concerning the alleged theft of his property. The request for preservation of CCTV footage formed an important part of the relief sought because the footage could show the circumstances and events at the police station during the period identified in the petition. The High Court consequently directed that the relevant footage be examined and preserved and that it be produced before the Court along with the inquiry report.
The direction to preserve the CCTV footage applies specifically to the footage of Police Station Hasanganj for the relevant period identified in the petition. The Superintendent of Police has been directed to examine that footage as part of the inquiry. The material is also required to be produced before the High Court, thereby ensuring that the Court receives the recorded footage together with the findings of the police inquiry.
The Court's order also addresses the possibility that the allegations may reveal misconduct by police personnel. If the inquiry finds incriminating material against any police personnel, the Superintendent of Police has been directed to take appropriate action against the concerned personnel. The direction applies where incriminating material is found during the inquiry and is therefore connected with the factual findings that emerge from the investigation ordered by the Court.
The High Court has not, at this stage, recorded a final finding that the petitioner was illegally detained or that the jewellery, cash and other articles were actually taken by the persons named in the petition. The order instead requires the allegations to be examined through an inquiry by the Superintendent of Police and requires preservation and production of the relevant CCTV footage. The State has also been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations through its counter-affidavit.
The requirement that the Superintendent of Police's affidavit accompany the counter-affidavit ensures that the Court receives a formal account concerning the inquiry directed by it. The inquiry report, together with the CCTV footage, will form part of the material before the Court when the matter is taken up again. The Court has ordered that the matter be listed after the required responses and material are placed before it.
The allegations of illegal detention and alleged theft of property were therefore the central issues considered by the High Court at this stage of the proceedings. The petitioner has alleged that he remained detained at Police Station Hasanganj for several days without prosecution and that valuable property was allegedly taken from him during the relevant period. The alleged property included jewellery valued at ₹14 lakh, ₹35,000 in cash, two mobile phones and approximately 15 cartridges.
The High Court's directions require the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, to examine these allegations and the relevant CCTV footage. The preservation of the footage has been specifically ordered so that the material remains available for consideration in the proceedings. The Court has also required the footage to be produced along with the inquiry report, allowing the Court to examine the recorded material in connection with the allegations.
The State's counter-affidavit is to be filed within the period granted by the Court and must be accompanied by the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police. The matter will then be listed for further consideration. The Court has therefore kept the proceedings open pending the inquiry and the submission of the required material.
The case is titled Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and Others. The proceedings concern allegations arising from Police Station Hasanganj in Unnao district. The High Court's order requires the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, to conduct an inquiry, examine and preserve the CCTV footage for the relevant period, and produce the footage along with the inquiry report before the Court.
The Court has additionally directed that appropriate action be taken by the Superintendent of Police if the inquiry reveals incriminating material against any police personnel. The direction is to operate on the basis of the findings that emerge from the inquiry. The Court has also required the Superintendent of Police's affidavit to accompany the State's counter-affidavit.
Thus, the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court will continue after the completion of the inquiry and submission of the relevant material. The Court has directed preservation and production of the CCTV footage, required an inquiry by the Superintendent of Police, and provided for appropriate action if incriminating material is found against police personnel. The allegations concerning illegal detention, the alleged removal of ₹14 lakh worth of jewellery, cash, mobile phones and cartridges, and the circumstances at Police Station Hasanganj will therefore be examined through the inquiry and subsequent proceedings before the High Court.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.