Camera at women’s dressing room in ‘Chota Haridwar’: HC pulls up govt for not disclosing evidence

The court during a hearing on July 5 directed the state government to file a counter affidavit, disclosing the evidence found during investigation

The Allahabad high court has directed the Uttar Pradesh chief secretary to nominate an officer, not below rank of principal secretary, to conduct an inquiry into “non-disclosure of material particulars and evidence” in a case related to a temple caretaker accused of filming women bathing at “Chota Haridwar” area of Upper Ganga Canal in Ghaziabad’s Muradnagar in May this year.

An FIR was registered against suspect Mukesh Giri after a 45-year-old woman filed a complaint saying that she was filmed by the man on May 21 when she came for a bath. (Sakib Ali/HT Photo)

Police said an FIR was registered against suspect Mukesh Giri after a 45-year-old woman filed a complaint saying that she was filmed by the man on May 21 when she came for a bath. In the FIR, she alleged that suspect Mukesh Giri had placed a CCTV camera facing towards the changing room and watched the live feed of women changing clothes there.

Police maintained that they found a CCTV camera placed above the changing room and they also recovered the feed of the past five days (from the date of incident) and it had about 200 women changing clothes. Police told the court that only Giri had access to the live feed.

Suspect Giri went on the run and finally approached the Allahabad high court seeking anticipatory bail.

The court during a hearing on July 5 directed the state government to file a counter affidavit, disclosing the evidence found during investigation. But the affidavit filed by the government did not contain the evidences that the court sought.

“In respect of the evidence, only a letter from the National Commission for Women is annexed as Annexure No 2. In respect of criminal history Annexure No. 1 has been enclosed. In the present case, there is a serious allegation against the applicant that he was recording females while they were changing clothes. The counter affidavit of the state does not disclose any evidence despite the order of this court,” the court said in its order on August 8 .

The court directed that the Ghaziabad police commissioner to file an affidavit in the matter. The affidavit was duly filed.

“The earlier affidavit was filed by Rampal Singh, sub-inspector, police station Muradnagar. According to the commissioner of police, proceedings have been initiated against the aforesaid officer,” the court said during the latest hearing on August 23.

The high court also came down heavily on the previous counter affidavit (filed on July 25) and said that checks are at three levels – the first level of the police department, the second level as director of prosecution and third level as the office of government advocate.

“Neither the three levels have taken pain at the time of filing of previous counter affidavit to comply with the order of the court despite the fact that there are serious allegation against the applicant and the matter was required to be taken up by the authorities concerned. The office of director of prosecution cannot act like a post office, they have to examine instructions to find out whether the necessary averments have been stated and evidence has been enclosed along with the affidavit as required,” the court said.

It further said that by not disclosing the material particulars and evidence “indicative of negligence and lapses” on the part of authorities and directed that an inquiry to be set up and be conducted by an officer not below the rank of principal secretary to be nominated by chief secretary of Uttar Pradesh.

“A detailed inquiry shall be made by the inquiry officer indicating the negligence or lapses being made by the police, office of director of prosecution and office of government advocate. The state government shall also on affidavit show the steps taken by the state for ensuring that no suppression of facts, particulars and evidence is made by any government department in future and that the office of the government advocate functions in professional manner,” the court said.

The court will next hear the matter on September 12.

“The directions of the court will be complied with while action was also initiated against the sub-inspector who filed the previous affidavit,” said Naresh Kumar, assistant commissioner police, of Masuri/Muradnagar.