In a significant judgment underscoring the authority of the subordinate judiciary, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a Judicial Officer, while discharging judicial functions, holds a status “above” the District Magistrate (DM) or District Police Chief. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that any disregard for judicial orders passed by District Courts is “absolutely unpardonable” and constitutes a challenge to the authority of law.
The observations came during the hearing of a bail application and a related contempt matter involving the illegal detention of an applicant, Sanu @ Rashid. The case highlighted the persistent refusal of the Station House Officer (SHO) and the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of Police Station-Kotwali, Lalitpur, to comply with repeated notices from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) to produce CCTV footage.
Background of the Case
The applicant was accused in Case Crime No. 881 of 2025 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) related to a loan fraud involving Bajaj Finance Limited. The applicant’s counsel alleged that he was taken into illegal custody on September 14, 2025, though his formal arrest was only recorded on September 17.
To prove this illegal detention, the applicant’s sister moved the CJM, Lalitpur, for the preservation and production of CCTV footage. Despite three specific orders from the CJM (dated September 22, September 30, and November 3, 2025), the police officers failed to produce the footage, leading to the High Court’s intervention.
Arguments of the Parties
- Applicant: Counsel contended that the detention prior to the formal arrest was a gross violation of fundamental rights and that the police were deliberately suppressing the CCTV footage to hide the illegality.
- State/Police: SHO Anurag Awasthi and I.O. Narendra Singh appeared in person, offering an “unconditional apology.” They claimed the footage was unavailable due to limited storage capacity (two months). The Superintendent of Police (SP), Lalitpur, stated he had directed the officers to comply but was unaware of their continued defiance.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court focused heavily on the constitutional importance of the District Judiciary and the necessity of police compliance with judicial orders.
On the Status of the Judiciary: Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India (2024), Justice Deshwal observed:
“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.”
The Court further noted that District Judicial Officers are the “backbone of the judiciary” as they are the first point of relief for common citizens.
On Police Conduct and CCTV: The Court found that the police’s failure to provide footage violated the mandate of Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh (2021). It noted that properly maintaining CCTV cameras has become a “routine failure” in U.P. police stations, which directly affects personal liberty.
On Contempt: The Court held that the officers’ disregard for the CJM’s orders was deliberate. Under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the High Court exercised its authority to punish the officers for contempt of the subordinate court.
The Decision
- Contempt Conviction: Both the SHO and the I.O. were held guilty of contempt. They were sentenced to remain in “custody till rising of the Court” and were released only after 4:00 PM on the day of the order.
- Compensation for Illegal Detention: Finding the detention from September 14 to September 16, 2025, to be illegal, the Court directed the State to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation to the applicant.
- Bail Granted: The applicant was enlarged on bail, subject to the condition that he transfers ₹15 lakhs to the finance company as per his voluntary undertaking.
- Inspection Powers: The Court empowered CJMs and Magistrates to “randomly check the police stations” under their jurisdiction after court hours to ensure CCTV cameras are functional.
- DGP Directives: The Director General of Police, U.P., was directed to take action against the erring officers and ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s CCTV guidelines.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Sanu @ Rashid vs. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3821 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- Date of Order: February 19, 2026
