1 2025:CGHC:31157-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 369 of 2025 1 Mukesh Kumar Mehar S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Mehar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Bharari, Police Station - Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 Govinda @ Sonu Mehar S/o Shyam Sundar Mehar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Bharari, Police Station - Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 Station House Officer Police Station - Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.10 10:22:31 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “(I) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondent authorities to produce the CCTV camera footage of Police Station Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the period from 18.03.2024, 11:30 PM, to 20.03.2024, 11:00 PM, before this Hon'ble Court or the learned Trial Court ie. learned Special Judge (NDPS), Dilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.O.) in Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 48/2024. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide a detailed affidavit explaining the contradictions 3 between the reply dated 07.05.2025 and the RTI response dated 21.05.2025, along with records of any technical faults in the CCTV system during the relevant period. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate. 3. Facts of the case are that petitioner No.2 is in jail in connection with Crime No. 223/2024 registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.O.) for offence punishable under Section 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and petitioner No.1 is his younger brother. On 20.03.2024 Sub-Inspector Kamlesh Banjare posted at Police Station Ratanpur received a secret information by the informant that petitioner No.2 is waiting customers on the way to go village Bharari kept banned drug cough syrup in a green colour bag hanging in black colour Pulsar Motor Cycle. On the basis of the secret information given by the secret informant, the police of Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur conducted raid at Bharari Road where accused Govinda @ Sonu Mehar met and found in possession of 17 numbers Codeine Phasphate Syrup Maxcough in green colour bag. Each injection contains 100 ML, total quantity 1700 ML. Cost of each bottle Rs. 155/- total cost Rs. 2635/- and sold amount Rs. 600/- recovered from the possession of petitioner No.2. 4. The police of Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 registered FIR bearing Crime No. 223/2024 for offence punishable under Section 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act against petitioner No.2. Charge-sheet has been filed and the case is pending before the learned Second Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) as Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 48/2024. Petitioner No.2 has neither committed nor participated in any crime and he has falsely been implicated by the police. The alleged drug has not been seized from the conscious possession of petitioner No.2. Actual fact is that on 18.03.2024 petitioner No.2 had gone to his in-law's house at village Dagori, Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur to participate in a wedding ceremony. On 18.03.2024 in the night at about 12.00 hours a police team reached there and forcefully took petitioner No.2 to Police Station - Ratanpur and registered a false and fabricated case against him. On 15.07.2024 petitioner No.1 filed an application before the respondent authorities for proper investigation. On 18.07.2024 petitioner No.1 filed an application under Right to Information Act to provide CCTV footage from 18.03.2024 at 11.30 PM to 20.03.2024 till 11.00 PM, but the Public Information Officer, Police Station Ratanpur did not provide the aforesaid information till today, which shows that the police falsely implicated petitioner No.2 in crime in question. On 25.10.2024 respondent No.4 provided incomplete information to petitioner No.1. He did not provide the CCTV camera footage. 5. Being aggrieved by the inaction and arbitrary manners of the respondent authorities, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which was registered as WPCR No. 84/2025 and taken 5 up for hearing on 10.02.2025, but this Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to law before the appropriate forum. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 filed an application under Section 94 of the BNSS before the learned Trial Court for production of the CCTV camera footage, but the learned Trial Court dismissed the application vide order date 13.03.2025 stating that the CCTV camera footage of the aforesaid mentioned period has been deleted. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2025, the petitioners filed WPCR No. 201/2025 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2025 with cost of Rs. 2000/ with liberty to file afresh petition challenging the order dated 13.03.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 13.03.2025 the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur (C.G.) has dismissed his application, under Section 94 of BNSS filed by the petitioner No.2 for production of CCTV footage of the concerned Police Station of the relevant date on which he was illegally detained, has been dismissed on the basis of false statement of the respondent No.5 / SHO, Police Station, Ratanpur regarding deletion of the CCTV footage stating that CCTV footage of the particular date has been deleted due to technical fault, but he did not file any document regarding technical fault like information to higher authority, correspondence for maintenance, any bill-voucher for payment of maintenance agency etc. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of 6 Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Others, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 184. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. He further submits that he again filed application seeking CCTV footage from 18.03.2024 to 20.03.2024 under Right to Information on 21.05.2025 in which it has been replied that the CCTV in the mentioned dates were not functioning due to technical reasons. 9. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that a secret information has been received that the person is engaged in dealing with the narcotic substances and drugs. On the basis of the said information, raid was conducted and petitioner No.2 was caught in possession of 17 bottles of Codeine Phasphate Syrup, each bottle containing 100 ML of Syrup. Therefore, the total quantity of Codeine Phasphate Syrup equals to 1700 ML which is equal to 1700 Grams (1.7 KG). He further submits that the impugned order has been passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur vide order dated 13.03.2025 wherein it was observed that there were some technical issues or problems in the CCTV footage between the period demanded by the petitioner and therefore the footage between the period of 18.03.2024 to 20.03.2024 could not be preserved or stored and therefore it is not possible to provide the CCTV footage of the said period. He also submits that Rojnamcha Sanha No. 9 was registered at Police Station Ratanpur on 11.03.2024. It is further submitted that another Rojnamcha Sanha No. 11 was registered on 7 15.03.2024 by Police Station Ratanpur, wherein the problem in the CCTV footage has been recorded. He contended that petitioner No. 2 namely Govinda @ Sonu Mehar has a criminal record of many cases and earlier also an offence under Section 20 (B) of the NDPS Act was registered against him in the year 2023 which was registered as Crime No. 65/2023. It is further submitted that there is a total history of 10 cases against petitioner No. 2 including the present FIR and out of the 10 cases, 2 cases were registered under NDPS Act, 3 cases are registered under the IPC and 5 cases are under Preventive Actions registered against him under Section 107, 116 (3) of CRPC 126 &135 of BNSS] and Section 110 of the CRPC 129 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that criminal record against petitioner No.2 shows that earlier also he has been involved in the NDPS cases as well as other offences. It is also submitted that petitioner No. 1 also has a criminal record of 2 cases. He further contended that petitioner No. 1 is not an accused in Crime No. 223/2024. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 was not a party before learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are incorrect. It is further submitted that entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha also makes it clear that there was problem in the recording of CCTV footage around the period demanded by the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and substance and it is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8 11. From perusal of the records, it transpires that learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur vide order dated 13.03.2025 has observed that there were some technical issues or problems in the CCTV footage between the period demanded by the petitioners and therefore, the footage between the period of 18.03.2024 to 20.03.2024 could not be preserved or stored and therefore it is not possible to provide the CCTV footage of the said period. It also transpires that Rojnamcha Sanha No. 11 was registered on 15.03.2024 by Police Station Ratanpur, wherein the problem in the CCTV footage has been recorded. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by learned trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the CCTV footage between the period demanded by the petitioners I.e. between the period of 18.03.2024 to 20.03.2024 could not be preserved or stored and therefore it is not possible to provide the CCTV footage of the said period. Even in respect of the said prayer, earlier the petition of the petitioners was dismissed by order dated 8-5-2025 in WPCR No.264 of 2025. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar