Can Police Skip Videography During Recovery? Allahabad HC Says No, Warns Police of Disciplinary Action

Failure by police officers to conduct mandatory videography of search and seizure proceedings, as required under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), may invite disciplinary action, the Allahabad High Court has held, flagging routine non-compliance with statutory safeguards during recoveries.

"Failing to comply mandatory requirement of Section 105 of BNSS read with Rule 18 of the the Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024 may attract disciplinary proceeding against the concerned police officer so that on the one hand it would save innocent persons from false implication by showing false recovery of property or articles and on the other hand to prepare foolproof evidence against the criminals for hearing the bail application as well as during trial," court said.

The observation came while granting bail to one Shadab in a case involving alleged recovery of 40 motorcycles, where the court found that the police had neither videographed the recovery nor uploaded any material on the E-Sakshya portal, despite such recording being compulsory under law.

Shadab had approached the court seeking bail in connection with case of 2024 registered at Mansoorpur police station in Muzaffarnagar under Sections 305(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He was not named in the FIR and was arrested later along with four co-accused, from whose joint possession the motorcycles were allegedly recovered.

The applicant argued that the recovery was suspect as there were no independent witnesses and no videography, even though Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita makes audio-video recording of search and seizure mandatory.

The State opposed bail but did not dispute the absence of videography.

While granting bail on grounds of parity, prolonged incarceration and completion of investigation, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal went beyond the bail issue to examine the wider problem of police non-compliance with statutory safeguards introduced under the new criminal procedure framework.

Court noted that Section 105 BNSS was enacted specifically to prevent false recoveries and to ensure fairness in investigation by mandating audio-video recording of search, seizure and preparation of seizure lists. The provision also requires such recordings to be forwarded to the magistrate without delay.

Referring to Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024, court pointed out that videography through the E-Sakshya application is mandatory and must form part of the case diary. The rules further require the police to transmit the seizure list and recordings to the magistrate within 48 hours.

Court recorded that despite a circular issued by the Director General of Police in July 2025 reiterating this mandate, police officers continued to ignore the requirement, often citing the absence of independent witnesses while also failing to record recoveries electronically.

“This court came across number of cases where independent witness could not be found regarding recovery of any article and even then audio video recording through E-Sakshya portal or other audio, video electronic means was not conducted by the police,” the judge noted, adding that such lapses were giving undue benefit to accused persons during bail hearings and trials.

Terming the failure to videograph recoveries as reflecting “negligence and arbitrariness” on the part of the police, court held that such conduct directly undermines the credibility of the prosecution case.

The high court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue a detailed standard operating procedure as required under Rule 18(5), in coordination with the National Crime Records Bureau, for live recording and uploading of search and seizure proceedings.

Significantly, court also directed that non-compliance with Section 105 BNSS read with Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Rules may attract disciplinary proceedings against the concerned police officers. Such enforcement, court said, would protect innocent persons from false implication while also enabling the prosecution to present foolproof evidence against actual offenders.

Court directed the registrar (compliance) to forward a copy of the order to the DGP for necessary action.

Case Title: Shadab vs. State of U.P.

Order Date: January 5, 2026

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal