HC pans state on CCTV footage stand, grants bail in drugs case

Mumbai: Criticising the state's deprecating stance on the maintenance of CCTV footage at police stations and considering the possibility that a Pune student (27) was falsely implicated in a drug possession case, Bombay High Court granted him bail.
On Oct 4, Justice Anil Kilor granted bail to Omkar Patil, who was arrested last year after the anti-narcotic cell (ANC) of Pune police claimed it had recovered almost 8gm of LSD from his flat and over 22gm in a strip with 1,254 squares from a two-wheeler parked near his home last May.
Senior counsel Aabad Ponda and advocate Abhijeet Desai representing the student alleged false implication of their client. Ponda argued while it was alleged the student made a "voluntary confession" at the ANC office from 10pm to 10.30pm, cops have shown an "impossible" second recovery at 10.35pm from the scooter when his house was at least 20km away. HC expressed doubt over the claim too.
The student sought the CCTV footage to support his claim. On March 6, 2024, a special Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances court directed that the CCTV footage should be preserved. When he sought bail, police informed the trial court that CCTV footage was preserved only for 11 days. Ponda also cited Maharashtra govt's non-compliance with a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that mandated the installation of CCTV cameras with a minimum storage capacity of 365 days.
The state provided different versions regarding the number of cameras installed in the police station and their capacity. While it informed HC that there were 21 cameras with a storage capacity of 6-7 days, it had stated before Supreme Court in another case that police stations' CCTVs had a storage capacity of 365 days. Justice Kilor noted the Supreme Court's directions were to protect fundamental rights of citizens.
After also hearing prosecutor P H Gaikwad, who opposed the bail plea, HC said, "One thing is certain that either the prosecution is hiding something from this court in the present matter by taking a different stand as regards CCTV footage," or it has taken misleading stands before the courts. HC said, "Thus, there are reasons to say that false implication of the applicant, as alleged by the applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage..."