‘Question of integrity of our system’: HC orders Delhi Police to protect couple ‘lifted by UP police’

The Delhi Police, represented by advocate Amol Sinha, submitted that the police were not able to identify the vehicle from the CCTV footage. “We didn’t manage to get the video of the car,” Sinha said.

Referring to the CCTV footage he submitted, “There are certain people..they are the boy’s brother and friends who were there to persuade him to accompany him from Delhi to Modinagar.”

Justice Bhambhani said, “I’m not concerned with the friends, I’m only concerned with the UP Police”. The court asked if there was any other CCTV footage recovered to which the court was told that only the one showing the boy’s friends had been recovered by the police.

The HC, thereafter, noted that the registry has given an ambiguous report as to the service to the Additional Advocate General for Uttar Pradesh in the Supreme Court. “In view thereof it is directed that notice be served on Garima Prasad, AAG for the state of UP, to appear before this court on the next date of hearing,” said Justice Bhambhani while directing that a copy be served upon Prasad to assist the court in the matter.

The court allowed the Cyber Prevention Awareness Detection (CyPAD) Special Cell, Delhi Police, to place on record its report with respect to footage/screenshot from the CCTVs installed in the area from where the couple was lifted.

The court was hearing the plea of the couple – a 21-year-old man and 19-year-old girl – seeking protection against threats made by the girl’s relatives, who claimed that on the intervening night of February 16 and February 17 certain people, believed to be the policemen from Uttar Pradesh’s Modi Nagar police station “lifted” them and brought them to Modi Nagar police station in Ghaziabad.

On February 23, the HC issued notice to the DCP CyPAD Special Cell with the direction to examine the CCTV footage in order to obtain the facial shots of persons who are seen in the footage. The HC had further issued notice to the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh in the Supreme Court to also remain present on the next date of hearing listing it on March 9.

The HC had directed the investigating officer concerned to obtain the CCTV footage to see if the vehicle in which the persons visited the premises is available.

The court Friday further allowed the Delhi Police to submit an additional status report enclosing additional footage of CCTVs installed around the couple’s place of residence which shows the presence of certain other persons.

“As of now, Mr Sinha informs that it has not been possible to obtain any footage to identify the vehicle of the persons who visited the petitioners’ place of residence,” the court noted.

The couple’s counsel informed the court that the couple is “continuously receiving threats on phone including messages from the brothers of the girl”. The counsel informed the court of the two phone numbers from which the alleged threats were received.

The HC, thereafter, directed the investigating officer to verify who owns these numbers and take requisite steps to “trace the calls” and to monitor them if required. The officer is directed to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners, the HC said.

At this stage, the counsel appearing for the parents of the girl sought time to file a reply to the couple’s plea. He had earlier argued that maybe the girl is under threat from the boy she was with.

The court asked the counsel to read the Supreme Court’s 2011 judgment in Ashok Kumar Todi v Kishwar Jehan. “I would commend you to read it…what we are doing is as per that,” the court said. The court interacted with the couple and asked them whether they were safe to which the couple replied in the affirmative. The matter is next listed on April 5.