New Delhi, April 6 A court here has issued a notice to the Delhi Police seeking clarification on the absence of CCTV footage regarding the alleged illegal detention of an accused subcontractor in the Janakpuri biker-death case.
The case pertains to the death of Kamal Dhyani, who worked as an assistant manager at the Rohini branch of the HDFC Bank. Dhyani died on the night of February 5 after his motorcycle fell into a 15-foot-deep sewage pit that was allegedly left open during work being carried out by the Delhi Jal Board at Janakpuri.
Judicial Magistrate Harjot Singh Aujla was hearing the petition filed by sub-contractor Rajesh Kumar Prajapati alleging his illegal detention by the Delhi Police and issued the notice to the station house officer (SHO) and a sub-inspector (SI) of Janakpuri police station, seeking production of Digital Video Recorder (DVR) footage from February 6 to February 8.
In an order dated April 4, the court said, "Opportunity is granted to the concerned SHO to explain as to whether the accused was kept with SI Manoj and if so, produce the relevant CCTV footage."
The court noted that no call data record (CDR) or location tracking documents of the accused had been placed on record and the main case file was also not produced before it.
It further observed that no DVR footage from the back gate of the police station, where the accused was allegedly brought in and was available for the relevant period.
"Issue court notice to SHO concerned to clarify the steps taken to install CCTV camera of the back-gate of the PS Janakpuri and also to reply in writing the location tracking from where the accused was apprehended along with CDR of the accused from 06.02.2026 from 06:00 pm to 08.02.2026 till 10:00 am," the magistrate said.
Responding to the court's queries, the investigating officer (IO) submitted that the CCTV camera installed near the back gate was not operational at the time and, therefore, no footage could be procured.
Taking note of the submissions, the court granted an opportunity to the SHO concerned to clarify whether the accused was brought to the police station by a particular officer and to produce any available CCTV footage.
The accused has claimed that he was illegally detained on February 6, while his arrest was formally shown a day later, raising questions over the circumstances of his custody. It then listed the matter for April 8 for further proceedings.