Cops make excuses over lack of promised 660 CCTVs

CHANDIGARH: After giving the Punjab and Haryana high court an impression that 660 security cameras were being installed in the city to curb snatching, a crime that’s growing, police have now filed an affidavit that the project was taken away from the inspector general and merged with the Smart City Mission.

When the hearing into the current spike in the incidence of snatching resumed here on Thursday, police also submitted their ideas for reducing the rate of this crime. The police affidavit suggests that the task of fixing the closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras was merged with the central government’s Smart City project in June 2016, the engineering department is now considering it, and independent corporation Chandigarh Smart City Limited will now undertake it.

In the affidavit that deputy superintendent of police Amrao Singh has filed, police have requested the high court to take the project-status query to this independent corporation. It is also mentioned in the document that: “The UT chief engineer should also be made a respondent party to the case, for details of the period when the camerainstallation project was transferred from the office of the IG.” Based on an impression given by police that 660 cameras were being installed, a high court bench had directed the force to file a status report along with the count of these gadgets.

The police affidavit refers to a survey they had conducted in 2016 and 2017, the result of which suggest a requirement of 15,000 security cameras across the city. Of this, private individuals had installed 14,000 by this March 6. The document implores the trial courts to do proper verification of the people who stand surety for the accused in cases of snatching and be careful in granting bail to habitual offenders. The cops have advised the Chandigarh Administration to work against drug and abuse to contain snatching.

Additional solicitor general of India Satya Pal Jain submitted before the court that because the UT Administration had not provided the Indian government with some details sought on March 13, the latter was unable to include stringent provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for punishing the snatchers. He handed over a copy of the letter to the high court Bench and the UT’s standing counsel.