Woman SI Suspended After Chaubepur Video

Varanasi: A woman sub-inspector posted at Chaubepur police station has been suspended after a video circulated online that reportedly shows her slapping a female complainant inside the station.

The disciplinary action against Sub-Inspector Roshni Singh was taken on 17 July by a deputy commissioner of police while a departmental inquiry was opened. Suspension is an interim administrative measure and does not by itself establish the officer’s guilt.

The video had prompted the complainant’s family to accuse local police of bias and demand intervention by senior officers. Their claims about the conduct of station personnel remain allegations that must be tested against the full recording, witness statements and official logs.

What changed after the video

Earlier public information centred on the family’s complaint and the absence of a clear official response. The suspension is the first significant departmental action reported in the case and changes the status of the story from an online allegation to a formal police inquiry.

Investigators will need to establish what brought the complainant to the station, what happened before and after the recorded moment and whether force was used in breach of police procedure. A short social-media clip can document important conduct, but it may not contain the entire sequence; the inquiry should therefore preserve the original file and any station CCTV footage.

The family had also alleged that the local station leadership was shielding the officer. No finding has been announced on that accusation. Fair scrutiny requires the inquiry to be conducted outside the immediate chain of command named in the complaint and to give both the complainant and the suspended officer an opportunity to provide evidence.

Accountability and due process

Police stations are places where residents must be able to report grievances without intimidation. Any use of force against a complainant demands a documented justification, particularly when the encounter occurs inside official premises.

At the same time, public discussion should distinguish between suspension, an inquiry finding and a criminal charge. The available action is departmental; further steps will depend on the evidence and the conclusions reached by senior officers.

The case comes amid heightened attention to public-institution accountability in Varanasi, including a separate anti-corruption arrest involving a GST official. The matters are unrelated, but both reinforce the need for prompt disclosure when allegations concern public authority.

Varanasi Police should publish the inquiry’s outcome, the rule applied and any further action. A transparent conclusion is necessary both for the complainant and for the officer, whose suspension should not be allowed to substitute for a timely, evidence-based decision.