PRAYAGRAJ, March 3 -- While initiating contempt proceedings against two police officers, the Allahabad high court has observed that a judicial officer, while discharging official duty, is above the district magistrate, the district police chief and even the political head of a state, and that disregarding his order is unpardonable. The court further said that such disregard for a judicial officer's orders is not merely contempt of court but a direct challenge to the authority of law. On February 19, the bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while hearing a bail application of an accused arrested for financial bungling in Lalitpur district, also came down heavily on errant police officials for ignoring the orders of a chief judicial magistrate (CJM) in Lalitpur. Thus, the single judge sentenced a station house officer (SHO) and an investigating officer (IO) to custody in the courtroom till the rising of the court. The accused had alleged illegal detention at the police station. A bail application was filed by Sanu alias Rashid, who was implicated in a cheating case. He was allegedly taken into custody on September 14, 2025, without being formally arrested. On September 16, his sister moved an application before the CJM, Lalitpur, alleging that the police took her brother into custody but his arrest was not shown. She also moved an anticipatory bail application the same day. However, the same was dismissed on September 18, upon being informed by the DGC (criminal) of the applicant's arrest on September 17. Taking serious note of it, the CJM, Lalitpur, passed a series of stern orders on September 22, September 30 and November 3, 2025 directing the concerned SHO and the IO to produce the CCTV footage of the police station for the dates of the alleged illegal detention. However, the footage was still not produced. The CJM also warned the police officers of contempt proceedings in his orders. Despite these orders, the police officers neither submitted a report nor provided the CCTV footage. Finally, when the matter came up before the HC on February 4, 2026, the high court summoned the concerned IO and the SHO. Both appeared on February 18 and tendered unconditional apologies. They further claimed that the CCTV storage capacity was only 10 terabytes, meaning footage was automatically deleted after two months. They also admitted that their failure to comply with the CJM's orders was due to 'inadvertence'. Justice Deshwal, however, refused to accept this explanation and noted that the SHO and IO had deliberately not complied with the CJM's orders. The single judge added that the court cannot shut its eyes to the non-compliance with the judicial orders. The high court also directed that the CJMs of all districts, or the concerned magistrates, as part of their official duty, will randomly check police stations within their respective jurisdictions after court hours regarding the functioning of CCTV cameras in police stations, with prior intimation to their district judge. The applicant in the present proceedings was granted bail by the high court upon his undertaking to transfer Rs 15 lakh to the finance company of the first informant within 15 days....