It is absolutely in the fitness of things that while striking the right chord at the right time, the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Sanu @ Rashid vs State of UP in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 3821 of 2026 that was pronounced just recently on February 19, 2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms which needs to be always borne in mind that a judicial officer, while discharging his judicial duties, is above the district magistrate or district police chief and even to the political head of a State. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made the key observation while dealing with a case in which Uttar Pradesh Police had disregarded a Chief Judicial Magistrate’s orders for the production of CCTV footage from a police station accused of illegally detaining a man. It also merits mentioning that while dealing with the case before it on merits, the Court found that the petitioner was illegally detained by the police for three days and his formal arrest was shown only after his sister filed an application before the CJM. It was made crystal clear by the Bench that disregarding judicial orders is absolutely unpardonable. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Affidavits of compliance filed by the learned AGA on behalf of Sri Anurag Awasthi, Station House Officer, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur as well as Sri Narendra Singh, Investigating Officer are taken on record.”
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 2 that, “Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena along with Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.”
As things stands, the Bench then points out in para 3 that, “The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.881 of 2025, under Sections-318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS, Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur, during the pendency of the trial.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that, “As per the prosecution story, present applicant, in collusion with some of the co-accused, opened the bank accounts of some of the loanees in Axis Bank and after getting sanctioned the loan from Bajaj Finance Ltd., in collusion with the officials of finance company, transferred the same in that account and thereafter, withdrew a major part of the loan amount from those accounts, and very small amount was given to loanee thereby cheating the Bajaj Finance Limited.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5 that, “This matter was heard on 04.02.2026. On that date, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that actually, the police has taken the custody of the applicant on 14.09.2025 without showing his formal arrest. Thereafter, the sister of the applicant moved an application before the CJM, Lalitpur on 16.09.2025, mentioning therein that the police has taken the applicant into custody on 14.09.2025, but his arrest has not been shown till date. Apart from the above application, an anticipatory bail application was also filed on behalf of the applicant on 16.09.2025, mentioning therein about the illegal custody of the applicant since 14.09.2025 and same was dismissed on 18.09.2025, on being informed by the DGC (Criminal) about the arrest of the applicant in the morning of 17.09.2025.”
Briefly stated, the Bench states in para 6 that, “The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur considering the application dated 16.09.2025, directed the police station concerned vide order dated 17.09.2025 to submit report regarding illegal arrest and providing CCTV footage of the police station. When no report was submitted, then the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 22.09.2025, directed the In-charge I.O., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur to show cause why he has not complied the order dated 17.09.2025 and also directed him to appear personally before him on 24.09.2025. A copy of this notice was also sent to the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur. Despite the order dated 22.09.2025, neither any report was submitted nor the CCTV footage of the police station has been produced before the court. Then the CJM again issued a notice dated 30.09.2025, directing the SHO as well as I.O. to comply his earlier order by producing CCTV footage of the police station for 14/15.09.2025 and further sought an explanation why the co-accused Rashida, despite being a lady, has been arrested at 4:00 am, though, a lady cannot be arrested after the sunset and before the sunrise. In the aforesaid notice/order, the learned CJM, specifically directed to SHO as well as I.O. to submit their explanation by 04.10.2025. Despite the order dated 30.09.2025, neither the SHO nor the I.O. of Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur has provided CCTV footage or explanation as sought by earlier order. Then the In-charge CJM, Lalitpur passed a fresh order dated 03.11.2025, directing the SHO as well as the I.O. of Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur that in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh And Others reported in (2021) 1 SCC 184, they were required to keep the CCTV footage at least for six months, but they have not produced the CCTV footage. Therefore, they should appear before him at 10:00 am on 04.11.2025 along with the CCTV footage of the police station regarding the concerned dates. The record shows that order of the CJM, Lalitpur was neither complied by the SHO nor the I.O., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur. For the reference, the orders dated 22.09.2025, 30.09.2025 and 03.11.2025 of CJM, Lalitpur are being quoted.”
Truth be told, the Bench then lays bare in para 7 observing that, “Considering the above facts and taking into account that it is a case of not only the illegal detention, but also disobeying the direction of the Apex Court issued in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra), this Court, vide order dated 04.02.2026, directed the concerned SHO as well as I.O. to appear personally before this Court along with the CCTV footage dated 14/15.09.2025. On 18.02.2026, Sri Narendra Singh, present I.O. of this case, who has joined the investigation on 25.09.2025 as well as Sri Anurag Awasthi, SHO, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Lalitpur, appeared in person and expressed their inability to produce the CCTV footage, on the ground that storage capacity is only up to two months and the same has been deleted. However, they could not give any explanation as to why they have not complied with the orders of CJM, Lalitpur dated 22.09.2025, 30.09.2025 and 03.11.2025 and offered an unconditional apology for non-compliance of the order of CJM, Lalitpur. Therefore, the Court directed both these two officers to file their personal affidavits regarding the explanation for non-compliance of the order of CJM, Lalitpur and tender an apology, and the matter was posted for 19.02.2026.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 12 that, “This Court is aware of the power of courts in bail matters, but here, the issue is regarding illegal arrest and not providing the CCTV footage to the concerned CJM, despite his repeated orders. Therefore, this Court, being a Constitutional Court, cannot shut its eyes, as here the question is not only the violation of personal liberty of a person enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, but also disregard to the order of the judicial authorities, which has effect of demeaning the authority of law.”
Do also note, the Bench notes in para 19 that, “From the above directions issued in Paramvir Singh Saini’s case (supra), it is also clear that there was a specific direction that the storage capacity of CCTV camera footage should be such that it can retain the footage for at least 18 months, with a further direction that till the technology is available for storing CCTV footage for 18 months, it should be preserved up to 6 months. The SOP issued by the Director General of Police, U.P. in May, 2021, prescribed the maintenance of CCTV footage, but by the DG Circular dated 20.06.2025, it was directed that CCTV footage should be maintained up to 2-2½ months, which itself is contrary to judgement of Apex Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra).”
On a serious note, the Bench notes in para 20 that, “As of date, not properly maintaining the CCTV camera has become a routine feature in several police stations of U.P., which is seriously affecting the personal liberty of persons who were illegally taken into custody by the police.”
Notably, the Bench points out in para 21 that, “The facts of the present case show that the police officers at the level of the Inspector, disregarding the order of the CJM, who is the head of the Magistracy in the District Court, though the CJM or any Judicial Officer, while discharging his duty as a Judicial Officer, is much above the administrative and executive officers, and his role can be equivalent to that of the legislature and political executive (ministers).”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 22 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The Apex Court in the case of All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 546, has also observed that the Judges are not comparable with the administrative and executive officers. They discharge sovereign state function and just like the Council of Ministers or political executive, their service is different from the secretarial staff or administrative executive, which carries out the decisions of the political executive. Therefore, they are only comparable with political executive and legislature. Therefore, it is clear that while a Judicial Officer (may be the Judicial Officer of Junior Division) is discharging his judicial function, he is above to the District Magistrate or District Police Chief and even to political head of a State. Anyone entering his Court has to give respect to the Chair of the concerned Judicial Magistrate and disregarding the order of Judicial Magistrate is not only the contempt of Court, but also challenging the authority of law, as they are discharging their duty to uphold the rule of law. District Judicial Officers are the first who grant relief to a common person. Therefore, they are the backbone of the judiciary, and disrespecting or disregarding the judicial orders passed by the judicial officers in the District Courts is absolutely unpardonable and deserves to be punished, being contempt of their Courts.”
Do further note, the Bench notes in para 23 that, “Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short ‘the Act of 1971’) provides that the High Court has the authority to punish for contempt of subordinate courts. Therefore, if any order of Judicial Officer of a District Court has not been complied or disobeyed, then the High Court, in exercise of its power u/s 10 of the Act of 1971, can punish the contemnor for the contempt of the Subordinate Court.”
On a pragmatic note, the Bench then hastens to add in para 24 directing and holding that, “In the present case, both the officers have admitted their fault to disregard the orders dated 22.09.2025, 30.09.2025 and 03.11.2025 passed by the CJM, Lalitpur and also offered unconditional apology. Therefore, this Court, instead of sending this matter to the regular Contempt Court, itself proceeded with against both the officers, namely, Narendra Singh and Anurag Awasthi. Therefore, this Court holds both the officers guilty of contempt of the court of CJM, Lalitpur for deliberate non-compliance of his orders dated 22.09.2025, 30.09.2025 and 03.11.2025 but taking lenient view so far as the sentence is concerned, the Court sentences them to remain in custody till rising of this Court. The Court Officer, High Court, Allahabad is directed to take both these officers into custody and they shall be released after 4:00 pm today. They are further warned that in future, any disobedience of the orders passed by judicial officers of the District Court on their part shall be dealt with strictly, in accordance with law.”
Further, the Bench directs in para 25 holding that, “This Court further directs the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow to look into this issue and take appropriate action against erring police officers, in accordance with law.”
To be sure, the Bench then directs and holds in para 26 that, “This Court, considering the fact that CCTV cameras installed at police stations, are not being regularly checked by the DLOC or senior police officials, despite the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) which is the law of land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India that is binding not only on the Courts, but on all the police officers. If a police officer fails to discharge his duty to comply with the directions of the Apex Court, then it is the paramount duty of the judicial officers to see whether the directions of the Apex Court has been complied with by the police officer in letter and spirit or not.”
It is worth noting that the Bench directs and holds in para 27 that, “Therefore, this Court further observed that the CJMs of all the districts or the concerned Magistrates may randomly check the police stations, under their respective jurisdictions after court hours regarding the working of CCTV cameras in police stations, with prior intimation to their District Judge, and if the CJM or the Judicial Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over the concerned police station inspects the concerned police station to check the CCTV camera to verify whether the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) has been complied that would be considered as part of his/her official duty. During this inspection, all the police officials shall cooperate with him and any hindrance or disrespect to any judicial officer will be dealt with strictly.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 29 that, “From the above discussion, it is clear that Human Rights Court at every district can entertain complaint regarding violation of Human Rights which also includes illegal detention by police or custodial violence in police station and proceed in accordance of law.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 30 that, “This Court is aware about the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Vs. State of Gujarat And Others reported in 1991(4) SCC 406, wherein, the Apex Court has observed that a judicial officer should not visit the police station, except in connection with his official or judicial duty and function, and for that reason, this Court is making the inspection by a Judicial Magistrate or CJM, of police stations, for checking the working of CCTV cameras, in compliance with the order of Apex Court in Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) as part of their official duty.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 31 holding that, “Now, coming to the present case, it is clear, from the facts discussed above, that the present applicant was illegally detained by the earlier I.O., Sri Kamlesh Kumar and for that reason, he as well as his successor Sri Narendra Singh, Inspector and S.H.O. Sri Anurag Awasthi failed to provide the CCTV footage to the CJM. When the sister of the applicant filed an application for anticipatory bail as well as an application on 16.09.2025 before the CJM, complaining of the illegal arrest of the applicant, only then his formal arrest was shown on 17.09.2025. Even the information of arrest of the applicant was not given to the family members of the applicant. The memo of information produced by the learned AGA shows that information regarding arrest dated 17.09.2025 was given to the father of the applicant by taking his signature, but no date was mentioned in the said memo. Therefore, the arrest of the applicant from 14.09.2025 to 16.09.2025 shall be considered illegal.”
Most commendably, the Bench then directs and holds in para 32 that, “Therefore, this Court further directs the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac to the applicant in lieu of his illegal detention, and the State Government is at liberty to recover the same from the salary of the persons responsible for the illegal detention of the applicant.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 33 that, “Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that his client was illegally detained on 14.09.2025, and his formal arrest was shown on 17.09.2025. The information of his arrest itself was not given to his family members, immediately after his formal arrest, which was shown as 17.09.2025. Therefore, on this ground itself, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he is willingly offering to pay Rs.15 lakhs to the Bajaj Finance Limited, as there appears to be some negligence on his part being empanelled in DSA of Finance Company of first informant and he undertakes that within 15 days from his release, he will return the aforesaid amount to the Bajaj Finance Limited. He has further requested that the concerned Bank where the applicant is having his account may be directed to permit transfer of the aforesaid amount in the account of the Bajaj Finance Limited as his account has been seized.”
Most rationally, the Bench then opines in para 34 that, “Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.”
In addition, the Bench then stipulates in para 35 directing and holding that, “Let the applicant- Sanu @ Rashid, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.
v. The applicant as per his undertaking will transfer Rs.15 lacs to the Finance Company of the first informant.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 36 that, “In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.”
For sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 38 that, “It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.”
What’s more, the Bench then further directs and holds in para 39 that, “t is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.”
Still more, the Bench then also further directs in para 40 holding that, “Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.”
Last but not the least, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 41 that, “Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow and all District Judges of U.P., for necessary compliance.”
Sanjeev Sirohi