LUCKNOW, Feb. 26 -- The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has granted 10 days' time to the counsel for petitioner to file reply to the personal affidavit filed by UP chief secretary in the matter of instances of non-functional CCTV cameras in police stations. The court directed to list the case on March 12 for next hearing. The division bench of justice Abdul Moin and justice Babita Rani passed the order on February 23, 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 BNS at Motigarpur police station in Sultanpur. The petitioner sought quashing of the case for being booked falsely and illegally after ascertaining the truth from CCTV footage. On February 4, the court had directed the 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 had also noted that such "coincidences" surfaced particularly when courts called for footage. The court had 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, failing which he shall appear in person before the court. In pursuance of the earlier order of the court (dated Feb 4, 2026), the personal affidavit of the chief secretary filed on February 23, was taken on record by the court. The petitioner's counsel stated that by means of personal affidavit, the respondents are only confining the issue to the CCTV footage, even though other issues are also involved. He requested for and was granted 10 days' time to file a reply thereto summarising the issues, which are now involved in the matter. The state counsel stated that a charge sheet has already been filed in the case before the court concerned and cognisance has been taken on November 20, 2025. Responding to the aforesaid, counsel for the petitioner stated that apart from the request for quashing of FIR as has been requested for in the instant petition, other reliefs have also been sought which can be considered. "As such, list this case on 12.03.2026 on which date, the learned counsel for the petitioner shall have a liberty for mentioning the case to be taken out of turn," the court directed. The petitioner's lawyer had submitted that the petitioner, a handicapped person of 56 years, had been booked in a false case by the Motigarpur police of Sultanpur. The petitioner alleged that cops forcibly entered his residence, took him without warrant or notice, and subjected him to custodial torture and physical assault around 1am on September 7, 2025. Earlier, the high court had directed the SP of Sultanpur, and other officers concerned 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 committee 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. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH...