Allahabad HC Seeks Action Against Police Personnel Who Allegedly Subjected Man To Custodial Violence For ‘Obstructing’ Traffic

CASE TITLE: Rajat Bajpai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 5811 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 17.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon’ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.


The Allahabad High Court has requested appropriate measures to be taken against police officers accused of subjecting a young boy to abusive treatment while in custody over a minor incident involving parking on the roadside. The panel consisting of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari also expressed worry about the malfunctioning of surveillance cameras in State’s capital city police stations. They instructed the police department to address and rectify this issue.


The court issued this directive during the handling of a writ petition filed by the victim’s father, who alleged that his son had been subjected to severe physical abuse by the police officers. This abuse allegedly occurred after it was discovered that the victim had parked his two-wheeler on the road, causing a traffic obstruction. The plea sought consequences for the police personnel involved.

During the previous hearing, the court, after observing the victim’s injuries, ordered a medical examination of the victim.

Subsequently, on August 17, the court received the medical report, which indicated that the injuries were a result of physical assault.

In the court’s presence, the Additional Commissioner of Police expressed the view that an altercation had taken place between the victim (Rajat Bajpai) and the police personnel regarding the motorcycle parking. This purportedly led the police officers to forcibly take Rajat Bajpai to the relevant police station in their vehicle.

The viewpoint put forth was that due to Rajat Bajpai staging a sit-in protest on the road and being forcibly taken into the police vehicle, his legs were injured due to friction or a scuffle.

However, the court was unconvinced by the Additional Commissioner of Police’s explanation, citing medical reports that clearly indicated the injuries were caused by a solid and blunt object, indicative of physical assault.

The court explicitly disagreed with the notion that the petitioner’s injuries were the result of friction during the police officers’ attempt to lift him and place him in the police vehicle.

“The injuries reported by the two Medical Officers cannot be caused by friction,” the court emphasized.

Furthermore, the court observed that two constables named Vishal Singh and Rahul were unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for taking the petitioner away from the holding area for five minutes.

“The Additional Commissioner of Police has not offered any opinion on the possibility of these two Constables assaulting the petitioner. He has only stated that taking the petitioner out was inappropriate,” the court commented.


Regarding the CCTV footage from the involved Police Station, the Court acknowledged that the Investigating Officer had determined that the bullet cameras at the Police Station were not operational.

Expressing worry over the malfunctioning CCTV cameras in police stations, the panel of judges remarked as follows:

“We’ve been informed that the Director General of Police has issued directives for all Police Stations to have CCTV coverage. However, this is the second instance in the state’s capital city, Uttar Pradesh, where the Police have informed this Court that the CCTV cameras were not functional at the relevant time and have been inoperative for a considerable period. This is a serious concern, and such a report from the Police is unacceptable.”

Furthermore, recognizing that the Constables involved have not been individually named as respondents in this petition, the Court ordered their inclusion and scheduled the matter for September 20. During this hearing, a comprehensive counter affidavit is expected from the State respondents regarding actions taken against the police personnel and the operational status of CCTV cameras in police stations.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to View the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani