The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of ₹5000 on a woman Investigating Officer after taking note of her negligence in not collecting the phone of the accused, who was booked in a POCSO (Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012) case and had allegedly uploaded obscene content of the victim on social media.

The High Court was considering an application of the applicant accused who sought his release on bail in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 70(2), 351 (3) of the B.N.S. read with Section 5(G), 6 of the Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and Sections 3, 5(1), 5(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held, “The above fact shows not only the negligence on the part of the I.O. in conducting the investigation but also contemptuous by not collecting the mobile phone of the applicant, which is relevant evidence in view of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS. This Court expressed its displeasure on this negligence but taking a lenient view, refrains from passing any stricture against the above I.O. being lady officer but directs her to deposit Rs. 5,000/- in the Army Welfare Fund as a cost and to be careful in future. It is further directed that the I.O. shall not leave the Court and shall remain in the custody of the Court until 4 o'clock and shall be released/allowed to go thereafter. After depositing Rs. 5,000/- in the Army Welfare Fund, the receipt thereof shall be submitted before the concerned Magistrate.”

Advocate Deepak Kumar represented the Applicant while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

There was an allegation in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS that the applicant, after editing her obscene photo/video, uploaded the same on social media. However, the I.O. had not recovered the mobile phone of the applicant to check the allegation regarding editing the obscene photo/video of the victim. The Court had thus earlier directed the I.O. to appear before the Court personally. In compliance with the order of the Court, the I.O. of the case appeared before the Court and admitted that she had mistakenly failed to collect the mobile phone of the applicant. She further stated that, after receiving a copy of this order, she was trying to collect the mobile phone of the applicant in the pending investigation of the co-accused.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that in Pankaj Vs. State of U.P. (2026), the High Court had directed the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, to issue a circular to all police officials to make it mandatory to collect the mobile phone of the accused where there is an allegation of making an obscene video/photo or making the same viral by the accused. In pursuance of the order, the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, had also issued a circular to all police officers.

Taking note of the negligence on the part of the I.O. in not collecting the mobile phone of the applicant, the Bench ordered her to deposit Rs 5,000 in the Army Welfare Fund as a cost and asked her to be careful in future.

Dealing with the facts of the case, the Bench took note of the contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the refusal to conduct medical examination of the victim, the nature of the offence, the evidence, the complicity of the accused, the overcrowded jails, and the heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts. The Bench also considered the mandate of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kapil Wadhawan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025), and the guideline of the Court in Maya Tiwari vs. State of U.P., (2024) regarding the grant of bail.

Thus, allowing the application, the Bench ordered the applicant to be released on bail.

Cause Title: Raj Raeen v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:221357)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocates Deepak Kumar, Vaibhav Srivastava

Opposite Party: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.