Allahabad High Court Keeps IO in Court Custody Till 4 PM for Not Collecting Accused’s Phone in POCSO Case

The Allahabad High Court has directed a woman Investigating Officer to remain in the custody of the Court until 4 o’clock and deposit ₹5,000 as cost for failing to collect the mobile phone of an accused in a POCSO case, despite the victim alleging that her edited obscene photo/video had been uploaded on social media. The Court also granted bail to the accused.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order on a bail application filed by Raj Raeen, booked under Sections 137(2), 70(2) and 351(3) of the BNS read with Section 5(G)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 3, 5(1) and 5(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, at Police Station Moosa Nagar, District Kanpur Dehat.

Background: IO Summoned Over Missing Phone Seizure

When the matter was heard on 09.10.2026, the Court found that although the victim, in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, had alleged that the applicant edited her obscene photo/video and uploaded it on social media, the IO had not recovered the applicant’s mobile phone to verify the allegation. The Court directed the IO to appear in person.

READ ALSO  NDPS: Mere Notice Not Sufficient, Presence of Accused Mandatory While Hearing Extension Application, Rules Kerala HC

In compliance, IO Anita Varma of Police Station Moosa Nagar appeared and admitted that she had mistakenly failed to collect the applicant’s mobile phone. She told the Court that after receiving a copy of the order, she had been trying to collect it in the pending investigation of the co-accused.

The Court recalled that in Pankaj Vs. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 37064, it had directed the Director General of Police, U.P., to issue a circular making it mandatory to collect the accused’s mobile phone wherever there is an allegation of making an obscene video/photo or making it viral. Pursuant to that order dated 17.07.2026, the DGP issued a circular on 25.07.2026 to all police officers.

Allahabad High Court on IO’s Lapse

The Court held that the facts showed “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.”

Expressing displeasure over the negligence, the Court said it was “taking a lenient view, refrains from passing any stricture against the above I.O. being lady officer”, but directed her to deposit ₹5,000 in the Army Welfare Fund as cost and to be careful in future. It further ordered that “the I.O. shall not leave the Court and shall remain in the custody of the Court until 4 o’clock”, after which she would be allowed to go. The deposit receipt is to be submitted before the concerned Magistrate.

READ ALSO  Allahabad HC Slams Jailer For Not Releasing an Accused Due to Middle Name “Kumar” Was Missing From Bail Order

Arguments on Bail

Advocate Yogesh Srivastava, holding brief of Advocate Vaibhav Srivastava for the applicant, submitted that there was no allegation of rape, but of sexually assaulting the victim by touching her inappropriately. He argued that though the victim alleged editing and circulation of a photo/video, police had recovered no such material. He added that the applicant has no criminal history, the charge sheet has been filed, and he has been in jail since 04.07.2026.

AGA Sunil Kumar, appearing for the State, vehemently opposed the bail plea but could not dispute these facts.

Bail Granted

Considering, among other things, the contradictions in the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the refusal to conduct the victim’s medical examination, overcrowded jails and heavy pendency before trial courts, along with Kapil Wadhawan vs. CBI, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, and Maya Tiwari vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 6765, the Court allowed the application without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The applicant is to be released on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence, cooperation in the trial and no criminal activity. The trial court was directed to send the release order through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS).

READ ALSO  इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने एक न्यायिक अधिकारी को असभ्य तरीके से अपना नाम बताने के लिए एक पुलिस अधिकारी के खिलाफ अवमानना कार्यवाही शुरू की

Case Title: Raj Raeen vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36210 of 2026

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

Date: October 24, 2026

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles