Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheelo vs The State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
CRM M-46240 of 2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105/1 CRM M-46240 of 2022
Date of Decision:14.11.2024
Sheelo ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant a regular bail in case FIR
No.126 dated 20.06.2022 registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police
Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.
2. The present case was heard in detail on 20.01.2024 and
the following order was passed:-
"In the present case, Sheelo and Mangat Ram @ Mangal
have filed two separate petitions i.e.
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
CRM-M-22937-2023 and CRM-M-46240-2022 under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail to
them in case FIR No.126 dated 20.06.2022, registered
under Sectios 22, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police
Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.
Apart from that, Sheelo has also filed a petition i.e.
CRM-M-56665-2022 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a
prayer to handover the investigation of case FIR No.
126, dated 20.06.2022, under Sections 22, 29 of NDPS
Act, registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi,
District Kapurthala to some Senior Police Officer or to
some other Independent Agency as the police of Police
Station, Sultanpur Lodhi had falsely involved them in the
present criminal case.
As per the case of the prosecution, a police team headed
by ASI Bhupinder Singh was on patrolling duty at about
8.00 p.m. on 20.06.2022 near Rural Basti, Sultanpur
Lodhi and in the meantime, two persons were seen
coming on a motorcycle. On noticing the police party,
driver of the motorcycle had thrown a plastic envelop
and the lady, who was a pillion rider, had also thrown
the plastic envelop, which was attached with her Salwar.
On checking, 310 grams of intoxicating powder was
recovered from the envelop, which was thrown by the
driver of the motorcycle, whereas 225 grams of
intoxicating powder was recovered from the plastic
envelop, thrown by the lady i.e. the pillion rider.
Accordingly, a case under Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS
Act was ordered to be registered against both the
petitioners. As per the report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Alprazolam was detected in the sample
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
parcel of the intoxicant powder recovered from the
possession of the petitioners/accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contends that the
recovery of the alleged contraband has been planted on
both the petitioners. In fact, Sheelo, petitioner had moved
an application/complaint to SSP, Kapurthala against
Sonia, Vishal, Vicky and ASI Gurdev Singh, who was
posted at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi. Due to the said
complaint, the police officials of Police Station Sultanpur
Lodhi, namely ASI Amarjit Sigh called the accused i.e.
Sheelo and Mangat Ram @ Mangal (petitioners) to come
to the Police Station for joining the enquiry in an
application moved by Sheelo. At about 5.00 p.m. to 5.30
p.m. on 20.06.2022, Sheelo, Mangat Ram @ Mangat
alongwith some respectables, namely, Sulakhan Singh,
President of Sirmoni Rangreta Dal, Swaran Singh,
Numberdar, Krishana Devi, Raj Kumar and others had
visited the Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi. Their visit
was captured in the CCTV Cameras, which were
installed in Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi as the whole
premises of Police Station was under surveillance.
Surprisingly, after reaching the Police Station, both
Sheelo and Mangat Ram @ Mangal were taken into
police custody and both of them told the police officials
that they would file another complaint against the SHO
and the police officials of Police Station, Sultanpur
Lodhi as they had been illegally detained. The police
officials had beaten up both the petitioners in Police
Station as well. Learned counsel further contends that
the whole incident was recorded in the CCTV cameras,
which were installed in Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi.
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
After arrest of both the petitioners in the present case, an
application was moved by the petitioners before the
Special Court (under NDPS Act), Kapurthala and a
prayer was made to direct the SHO, Police Station
Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala to preserve the
video clips/photographs pertaining to Sheelo as they had
been wrongly arrested in the evening on 20.06.2022. A
notice of the application was served on the State of
Punjab, however, no reply to the said application was
filed by the State of Punjab before the Special Court and
the application was not contested. Ultimately, the said
application was allowed by the Special Court on
03.08.2022 by observing as follows:-
"Since CCTV camera have been installed at the entrance
and exit points of the police station for surveillance and
there are camera in the police station, the recording of
the entry and exit points of the police station Sultanpur
Lodhi for 05:00 p.m. to 05:30 p.m. of 20.06.2022 be
preserved. The application is not contested and in view
of the instructions, since CCTV camera have been
installed in the police station, so, the application in hand
is accepted and the CCTV camera recordings and the
video clips of the entrance and exit points of
P.S.Sultanpur Lodhi as well as of police lockup of
P.S.Sultanpur Lodhi are ordered to be preserved by the
SHO P.S.Sultanpur Lodhi from 05:00 p.m. to 05:30 p.m.
of 20.06.2022 and the same be not deleted from the
DVRs. This file be consigned to the record room,
Judicial, Kapurthala."
The above said order passed by the Special Court,
Kapurthala was never challanged by the State of Punjab
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
and had attained finality. However, it is also an admitted
fact that the CCTV Camera recordings and the video
clips of the entry and exit points of Police Station,
Sultanpur Lodhi as well as of police lockup of Police
Station Sultanpur Lodhi pertaining to the time period
from 5.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on 20.06.2022 were not
preserved by the SHO, Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi.
During the course of hearing of these three petitions,
various interim orders have been passed by this Court
from time to time.
Vide order dated 14.10.2022, the State was directed to
file a reply specifically to the assertions made in paras
No. 5 to 8 of the petition. In compliance of the said order,
a short reply by way of DSP, Sub-Division, Sultanpur
Lodhi, District Kapurthala was filed. The averments
made in the said affidavit were not only evasive but
contemptuous also. It was mentioned in para 8 of the
said reply that the Investigating Officer was not in the
knowledge of the application filed by Sheelo before the
Special Court, Kapurthala on 05.07.2022 for preserving
the CCTV footage of 20.06.2022 and had no knowledge
with regard to the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the
trial Court, directing the SHO, Police Station Sultanpur
Lodhi to preserve the CCTV footdage of Police Station,
Sultanpur Lodhi dated 20.06.2022 and consequently, the
CCTV footage could not be preserved by him. In fact,
before passing the order dated 03.08.2022, the Special
Court had already issued a notice to the State of Punjab
and the order was passed in the presence of Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State, who represented the
SHO of the concerned Police Station before the trial
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
Court. Rather, just to create a false defence, it was stated
that the SHO tried to verify the order dated 03.08.2022
from the trial Court and it transpired that ASI/LR
Gurdeep Singh No.1333 posted as Naib Court with the
trial Court had failed to provide the information
regarding filing of the application of preserving CCTV
footage from the date of filing of the said application i.e.
05.07.2022 till 03.08.2022 and the departmental inquiry
had been initiated against him. It was further submitted
that after getting the password, CCTV footage was
checked on 11.11.2022, however, the CCTV footage from
the period of 30.10.2022 to 11.11.2022 could be
extracted and the CCTV footage dated 20.06.2022 could
not be extracted. Aparently, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the SHO, Police Station
Sultanpur Lodhi had not only violated the order passed
by the Special Court, but had also violated the directions
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
"Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh and others",
2021(1) SCC 184; 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 64.
After noticing the averments in the aforementioned
affidavit dated 23.11.2022, this Court again expressed
the displeasure and directed the SSP, Kapurthala to
furnish the details with respect to back-up policy adopted
by the Department for storing CCTV footage data and
centralized server, wherein CCTV footage qua the
cameras installed in Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi were
stored and also to spell out the modalities to retrieve the
same.
In compliance of the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by
this Court, an affidavit was filed by SSP, Kapurthala and
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
the relevant contents of the affidavit were noticed by this
Court in the order dated 02.12.2022. The relevant
contents be read as under:-
"xx xx xx
13. That it is further respectfully submitted that so far as
the issue of CCTV footage storage, its depository and
retrieval method/rules is concerned, it is submitted that
from the report dated 29.11.2022 obtained from
Superintendent of Police (Hq.) Kapurthala cum District
nodal officer for that purpose, the following facts has
come to light:-
• For storage of CCTV footage of the cameras installed
at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, 6 TB hard drive is
installed in the DVR by the service provider company,
which stores data of 30 days.
• Backup of the CCTV Cameras Footage of 30 days can
be stored either in Pen Drive or in Hard Drive with the
help of password provided by the Vantage Company.
• There is no central server to store the footage data of
CCTV cameras, the data is stored only in the hard disk in
the DVR in offline mode.
• During checking of the CCTV cameras installed in
lock-up and check-in gates (on and exit of Police Station)
at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, it was found that the
CCTV recording is being stored only for 13 days in the
DVR. Therefore, the recording (footage) of 20.06.2022
from 05:00 PM to 5:30 PM., can-not be made available
due to efflux of time, as 5 months (161 days) have passed
since 20.06.2022.
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
• As per information obtained from, Mr. Parveen Nair,
Manager, Service Provider Company i.e. Vantage, the
data of more than 30 days cannot be retrieved from the 6
TB hard disk. Thus, there is no need to send DVR to FSL
Mohali.
True translated copy of report dated 29.11.2022 is
annexed herewith as Annexure R-3/T for kind
consideration of this Hon'ble Court."
Even the stand taken by the SSP, Kapurthala, was not
only evasive, but also in the teeth of directions passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Paramvir
Singh Saini's case (Supra). Again vide order dated
02.12.2022, this Court had directed that the DVR of the
concerned CCTV camera be sent to the FSL to see as to
whether the footage pertaining to dated 20.06.2022
could be retracted.
Again, a status report by way of an affidavit of SSP,
Kapurthala was filed on 28.01.2023 and on the strength
of the report received from CFSL, Chandigarh, it was
stated in the affidavit that the NVR and hard disk were
examined on 27.12.2022 in CFSL Chandigarh, however,
no data/deleted data of 20.06.2022 (5.00 pm to 5.30
p.m.) could be retrieved.
Vide order dated 07.08.2023, this Court again observed
that despite a specific order by the Special Court, the
CCTV footage was not preserved and the reply filed by
SSP, Kapurthala was not satisfactory. At this stage,
Mr. P.S.Sekhon, Advocate was appointed as Amicus
Curiae to assist the Court in the present case.
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
Learned Amicus Curiae has referred the status report
dated 04.09.2023, submitted by DSP, Sub-Division
Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala and submitted that
it has been admitted by DSP, Sub-Division, Sultanpur
Lodhi that at the time of registration of the FIR i.e.
20.06.2022, the CCTV footage of police station was
preserved for 15 days, however, at present, the CCTV
footage was being preserved for one month. Still further,
as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Paramvir Singh Saini's case
(Supra), the duty and responsibility for working,
maintenance and recording of CCTVs in all the police
stations is that of the SHO of the concerned Police
Station and it is his duty and obligation to report to the
DLOC in case of any fault with equipement or
malfunctioning of CCTVs.
In the present case, it is apparent that there are serious
lapses not only on the part of the SHO, but also on the
part of the District level Oversight Committee as well.
This Court has also reasons to believe that the directions
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Paramvir Singh Saini's case (Supra) have not been
complied by the State of Punjab in the letter and spirit.
Accordingly, the Director General of Police, Punjab is
directed to file his personal affidavit with regard to the
following facts (at State level as well each District level
separately):-
(i) Whether the Oversight Committees have been
constituted at State Level as well as the District Levels?
The names and designations of the members of Oversight
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
Committees at State Level as well as in each District
must be mentioned.
(ii) Whether the CCTV systems have been installed in all
the Police Stations, CIA offices, Police Posts in each
District. It must be specifically stated that each part of
Police Station, Police-Post and CIA are covered and no
part of the said institution is left uncovered. It must be
specified whether the CCTV cameras have been installed
at all entry and exit points, main gate of the police
station, all lockups, all corridors, Lobby and reception
area, all varandas and all the rooms, which are used by
the police officials, hall, outside wash rooms and in the
open Police Station compound as well, duty officials
room and the back side area of the police station.
(iii) Whether the CCTV footage system is equipped with
night vision and consist of audio as well as video
footage?
(iv) In case of electricity failure, what arrangement has
been made in each of the Police Station,/Police
posts/CIA office for supply of electricity to the CCTV
system and nature and capacity of such alternative
arrangement?
(v) Whether any provision has been made for recording
of the CCTV footage in the central server, which shall be
maintained at District as well as the State level? Whether
the data is stored in DVR/NVR in offline mode only or
any arrangements have been made for online storage as
well, in addition to that?
(vi) The affidavit must specify as to whether the
recording equipements are capable of storage of
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
recording of 18 months at least? ( Main DVR/NVR
attached to CCTV systems as well central storage
system).
(vii) The number of complaints received from various
police stations, police posts, CIA Offices with regard to
the fault/malfuntioning of the CCTVs systems, which had
already been installed there and the time taken by the
DLOC in carrying out the necessary repairs on the said
complaint.
(viii) What mechanism has been provided to check the
fault/malfunctioning of CCTV system? Whether any
periodical inspections have been conducted? Whether
any record is maintained at District level (DLOC) in this
regard?
In the meantime, Sheelo and Mangat Ram @ Mangal,
petitioners are directed to be released on interim bail
subject to their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief
Judicial Magistrate, concerned".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in
compliance of the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by this Court, the
petitioner was released on interim bail and she continued to be on
interim bail since then. After the grant of concession of interim bail,
the petitioner has not misused the concession in any manner.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he is not in a position
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152161
to controvert the fact that the petitioner had been misused the
concession of bail in any manner.
5. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the
interim order dated 20.01.2024 is made absolute. The petitioner shall
continue to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of
hearing and shall not remain absent without seeking prior permission
of the Court.
6. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty
to raise all the pleas available to her at the time of trial.
14.11.2024 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
