Misbehaving With Law Officers Communicating Court Orders Amounts To Contempt: Allahabad High Court
It was noted that when police officers receive an NBW issued by the High Court, they must personally ensure the arrest and production of the individual before the court.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court observed that Additional Government Advocates (AGAs) act as officers of the Court when communicating order compliance to officials, and any misbehaviour toward them by any state officer constitutes contempt.
It observed that discharging duties related to court order compliance demands proper respect, and addressed misconduct after the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Azamgarh, misbehaved with a learned AGA over a mobile phone conversation.
The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held, "This Court is of the view that learned AGAs are officers of the Court. Whenever they inform to any officer about the compliance of the order of this Court, they are discharging their duty in compliance of the order of the Court and misbehaving with them by any officer may be the top-most officer of the State will amount to contempt."
Advocate Shweta Nishad appeared for the Applicant, while Government Advocate Patanjali Mishra appeared for the Respondent
Brief Facts of the Case
A bail application was filed in connection with alleged offences under Sections 64(1) B.N.S. and Sections 66E, 67A of the I.T. Act.
According to the FIR, the applicant's marriage was fixed with the victim, during which time he remained in contact with her and allegedly prepared obscene videos and photographs.
The applicant then began blackmailing the victim, and after she refused to pay him Rs. 2 lacs, the obscene materials were uploaded to a fake Facebook ID created in the name of "Rakesh Yadav". The applicant has been in jail since March 1, 2025, and has no prior criminal history.
Contentions of the Parties
The Applicant argued that the fake Facebook ID in the name of Rakesh Yadav did not belong to the applicant and that he was falsely implicated in the case. It was also submitted that the applicant had no criminal history and had been in jail since May, 2025.
Per contra, the State submitted that the contents of the pendrive and the report of the Cyber Cell showed that the applicant created the fake Facebook ID in the name of Rakesh Yadav and subsequently uploaded the victim's obscene videos and photographs on Facebook.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that it was clear that the applicant created the fake Facebook ID in the name of Rakesh Yadav and used it to upload the victim's obscene videos and photographs.
"This Court also appreciates the humane gesture of the SSP, Azamgarh which was widely circulated in newspapers and on social media with regard to adopting two minor daughters of a criminal, who had killed his wife and another child, who later on died in a police encounter", the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held that it was not inclined to release the applicant on bail at that stage, and accordingly rejected the bail application.
Cause Title: Sachin Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neutral Citation:2026:AHC: 213930]
Appearances:
Applicant: Advocates Man Bahadur Singh, Saurabh Kumar and Shweta Nishad
Respondent: Government Advocate Patanjali Mishra
Click here to read/download the Order