Lucknow, Feb. 12 -- The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has directed the UP chief secretary to personally inquire into repeated instances of non-functional CCTV cameras in police stations. Observing that one instance could be treated as an accident but repeated occurrences suggested a pattern, the court invoked the adage: "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times a pattern." It also noted that such "coincidences" surfaced particularly when courts called for footage. The court made it clear that accountability must flow from the top, rather than lower-ranking officials being made scapegoats. It directed that the inquiry report, along with guidelines, be submitted by way of a personal affidavit of the chief secretary by February 23-the next date of hearing-failing which he shall appear in person. It further quoted a line popularised by Ian Fleming in the James Bond movie Goldfinger: "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." The division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani passed the order on February 4, while hearing a petition filed by one Shyam Sundar aka Shyam Sundar Agrahari, who sought quashing of an FIR dated September 6, 2025, registered under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code) at Motigarpur police station in Sultanpur. A charge sheet in the matter was submitted on November 14. The petitioner alleged that policemen forcibly entered his residence, took him without warrant or notice, and subjected him to custodial torture and physical assault around 1 am on September 7. He claimed that he was 56 and 40% physically disabled, and argued that the allegations in the FIR were false. Earlier, the high court had directed the superintendent of police of Sultanpur, and other concerned officers to file personal affidavits and produce CCTV footage from around the petitioner's residence as well as the police station premises, along with call detail records. In compliance, the SP and several officers appeared before the court and filed affidavits. A three-member panel was also constituted on September 18, 2025, to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the allegations. However, the court found serious inconsistencies in the explanation offered by the police regarding CCTV footage. The authorities placed on record a report stating that CCTV cameras at the asked locations had been non-functional since June 1 of that year. Yet, no corresponding general diary entry was produced to support this claim. The court noted that entries about repairs were made only after its order dated September 9, 2025, directing production of footage. The bench observed that it had repeatedly encountered similar situations in other cases, where CCTV cameras were reported to be non-functional precisely when footage was sought by courts. It remarked that repeated "coincidences" couldn't be brushed aside and indicated a prima facie attempt to evade the obligation of preserving and producing CCTV footage. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Paramvir Singh Saini V. Baljit Singh' case, the HC noted that directions had been issued for preservation of CCTV footage for periods extending up to 18 months, and at least six months. The bench observed that failure to preserve footage in the present case was not only contrary to the SC's mandate but also in violation of a circular issued by the UP DGP dated June 20, 2025....