The Allahabad High Court has issued a strong directive to the Uttar Pradesh Police, making it clear that failure to audio-video record searches and seizures as mandated under law could invite disciplinary action. In a significant observation while granting bail in a theft case, the court said that non-compliance with statutory provisions on electronic recording raises serious doubts over the prosecution’s version of events.
The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal instructed the state’s Director General of Police to frame and circulate a detailed Standard Operating Procedure for compulsory audio-video documentation of search and seizure operations. The court emphasised that this mandate forms an essential safeguard to prevent innocent persons from being falsely implicated and to ensure reliable evidence for trial.
The order came while hearing the bail plea of an accused in a Muzaffarnagar case, where 40 stolen motorcycles were allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and four co-accused. The accused, booked under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, argued that despite claims of such a massive recovery, there was neither any independent witness nor any recording of the seizure process, contrary to Section 105 of the BNSS.
Accepting the argument, the court noted that Uttar Pradesh Police failed to record the seizure or prepare a videographed seizure memo. It held that Section 105 of the BNSS, read with Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh BNSS Rules, clearly requires recording through the e-sakshya application or any other electronic mode. The absence of such compliance, the bench observed, not only reflects negligence but indicates arbitrariness, thereby casting doubt on the recovery itself.
The court underlined that the legal provision was specifically designed to check false recoveries and strengthen the evidentiary value of prosecution claims. It further directed that such recordings must form part of the case diary and be forwarded to the magistrate within 48 hours. The bench expressed concern that, despite a general circular issued in July 2025 regarding the requirement, a detailed SOP in coordination with the National Crime Records Bureau was still awaited.
The High Court remarked that it has repeatedly encountered cases where neither independent witnesses were present nor electronic recording was done, despite large recoveries being claimed. Terming this a serious procedural lapse, it warned that officers violating the mandatory provision could face departmental action.
Granting bail to the applicant, the court considered the absence of recording, lack of independent witnesses, earlier bail granted to co-accused, overcrowding in jails, and the principle of parity. It concluded that ignoring the compulsory videography requirement severely undermines the prosecution narrative and cannot be overlooked.
The order is likely to have wider implications for policing and criminal investigation in Uttar Pradesh, as it puts strong judicial backing behind technological transparency in law enforcement operations and signals that procedural lapses will no longer be treated lightly.