In a stern ruling emphasizing the dignity of State Law Officers, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, ordered the former Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Azamgarh, to be taken into judicial custody till 5 PM for misbehaving over the phone with an Additional Government Advocate (AGA). The single-judge bench held that misconduct toward State Law Officers communicating judicial directives amounts to contempt of court, while directing the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue a statewide advisory. In the same proceeding, the Court rejected the bail plea of an accused who allegedly created a fake Facebook account to circulate obscene media of a woman.
Background and Judicial Scrutiny of Police Conduct
The applicant, Sachin Yadav, had approached the High Court seeking bail during trial in Case Crime No. 373 of 2024, registered at Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh, under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act.
During the proceedings, compliance issues arose regarding an earlier order dated 29.09.2026. Dr. Anil Kumar-II, SSP Azamgarh, appeared in person and submitted an affidavit explaining the execution of a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against Investigating Officer (I.O.) Inspector Vinay Kumar Mishra. The affidavit stated that after receiving communication dated 07.09.2026 from AGA Anurag Pandey, the matter was marked to the Writ Cell and received at Maharajganj Police Station on 08.09.2026 at 18:43 hours. However, Sub-Inspector Subash Singh retained the correspondence, dispatching it to the Station House Officer (SHO) only on 18.09.2026 following an interim order dated 16.09.2026. A preliminary inquiry revealed that the SHO was also negligent, leading to show-cause notices against both subordinate personnel.
The SSP submitted an apology for not executing the NBW personally, under the impression that securing the I.O.’s presence was sufficient. Clarifying the procedure, the Court observed:
“Though, this is not correct legal position and the correct legal position is whenever any police officer receives an NBW issued by the High Court to be executed by him, then he should personally ensure the arrest of that person and produce him/her before the High Court as in NBW issued by the High Court, district court can grant bail.”
Considering the SSP’s clean record and his humanitarian gesture—widely reported in the media—of adopting two minor daughters of a deceased criminal who died in an encounter after killing his wife and child, the Court closed the issue against him, cautioning him to remain vigilant in executing future warrants.
Custody Order for Misconduct Against Government Advocate
Addressing the conduct of the SSP’s former PRO, Rajesh Kumar Singh, who misbehaved over the phone with AGA Anurag Pandey when the law officer sought compliance on 04.09.2026, the bench noted that the SSP had promptly removed him from the post and issued a show-cause notice. Underlining the institutional role of State Law Officers, the Court 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.”
Directing administrative custody in lieu of formal strictures, the bench ruled:
“Therefore, this Court instead of passing any stricture against him, directs that he be taken into custody and he will remain in the custody of court till 5 pm, whereafter he shall be released.”
The Court further directed the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, to issue a circular informing all police personnel that any misbehaviour toward High Court State Law Officers communicating judicial orders will be treated as contempt of court and dealt with strictly.
Arguments on Bail
On the merits of the bail plea, counsel for the applicant argued that the First Information Report (FIR) arose out of a broken matrimonial alliance. The defence submitted that while allegations claimed the applicant recorded obscene material during their courtship and demanded Rs. 2 lakh, the Facebook account under the name “Rakesh Yadav” used to upload the images did not belong to him. Counsel stated that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been incarcerated since 01.03.2025, and would not misuse bail or tamper with trial proceedings.
Opposing the plea, the learned AGA placed reliance on the investigation, pendrive contents, and the Cyber Cell report, pointing out that the applicant himself created the fictitious Facebook account on 08.09.2024 to upload the victim’s explicit media following extortion demands.
Court’s Analysis and Final Decision
Examining the cyber evidence and prosecution submissions, the Court observed:
“Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the report of the Cyber Cell, it is clear that the applicant after creating fake Facebook I.D. in the name of one Rakesh Yadav on 08.09.2024 uploaded the obscene video and photograph of the victim on Facebook, therefore, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail, at this stage.”
Accordingly, the bail application was rejected. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate a copy of the order to the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, for necessary administrative compliance.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sachin Yadav v. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33570 of 2025
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Date: October 12, 2026
