Explain power backup for CCTV cameras in police stations: High Court

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, April 16

Two years after the Punjab and Haryana High Court was told that CCTV cameras installed in all police stations across the state had power backup, a Bench has directed the police officer incharge of computerisation to file an affidavit on the veracity of the statement.

A cover-up?

The directions came a month after Sangrur SSP was asked to explain non-functioning of CCTVs in a police station while taking up a drugs case. The accused claimed the CCTV footage was deleted despite his prayer for its preservation.

“The ADGP/IGP, who is the nodal officer currently with regard to computerisation of CCTV cameras installed in police stations is directed to file an affidavit as to whether any power backup has been provided as was in fact stated on an affidavit by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Punjab/DGP, Punjab, before this court, around two years ago when CCTV cameras were ordered to be installed in all police stations,” Justice Amol Rattan Singh asserted.

The petitioner, Jatinder Kumar through counsel Ishan Gupta, was seeking probe by an independent agency such as the CBI in FIR registered on May 31 last year at the Bhawanigarh police station in Sangrur. Directions were also sought for taking stringent action against erring officials who allegedly destroyed the evidence in the form of CCTV footage of the police station.

After going through the SSP’s affidavit, Justice Singh asserted preliminary perusal revealed that not even a single word was said in response to the court query on the absence of power backup. The affidavit said there was some fault with the CCTV camera installed in the police station during the period in question.

Justice Singh said there would seem to be no excuse actually for any malfunctioning on account of power failure and the entire exercise prima facie, at least at the current stage, appeared to be a complete cover-up by the police.

Justice Singh granted interim bail to the petitioners without final comment on the actual merits of the case, after taking into consideration the contention that they were apprehended on May 30, 2020, and not on May 31, 2020, from a place different from the one shown in the FIR.