Court Censures Investigating Officer for Negligence in Evidence Collection; Bail Granted Considering Contradictions in Victim's Statements and Lack of Custodial Interrogation Necessity
In a significant judgment dated 24 October 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, granted bail to Raj Raeen, the accused in a criminal case registered as Case Crime No. 0059 of 2026 at Police Station Moosa Nagar, Kanpur Dehat district. The case involved serious allegations under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The accused was alleged to have sexually assaulted the victim by inappropriate touching and further accused of editing and circulating an obscene photo/video of the victim on social media. However, during the hearing, it was revealed that the Investigating Officer (I.O.), Ms. Anita Varma, failed to seize the accused's mobile phone, which was crucial electronic evidence given the nature of the charges involving edited obscene material. The victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNS contained contradictions, and notably, the victim refused to undergo a medical examination. Moreover, the police had not recovered any obscene photo or video as alleged.
Upon review, the Court expressed displeasure at the I.O.'s negligence, highlighting that this failure contravened prior court directives and police circulars mandating the seizure of mobile phones in such cases. Taking a lenient view considering the officer is a woman, the Court refrained from issuing strictures but imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 to be deposited in the Army Welfare Fund. Additionally, the I.O. was directed to remain in the Court's custody until 4 p.m. on the day of the order and to exercise greater care in future investigations.
The bail application was supported by counsel for the accused, who emphasized the absence of rape allegations, the contradictions in the victim's statements, non-recovery of the alleged obscene material, the applicant's clean criminal record, the filing of the charge sheet, and the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation. The State counsel did not dispute these facts.
The Court carefully balanced the circumstances, including the overcrowding of jails and the heavy pendency of criminal cases, while relying on precedents such as Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025 SCC Online SC 3038) and the Court's own guidelines in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024 SCC Online All 6765). Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail.
Conditions were imposed for bail including furnishing personal bond and two sureties, prohibitions against influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, cooperation with trial and investigation, abstaining from criminal activity, and attendance at court as required. Verification of identity, residence, mobile number, and Aadhaar details of the accused and sureties was mandated before bond acceptance. The Court also directed the use of the Bail Order Management System to ensure early release.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's approach of balancing the rights of the accused with the demands of justice, ensuring procedural fairness, and emphasizing accountability in investigation processes.
Bottom Line:
Bail - Allegations under BNS, POCSO Act and U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act - Bail granted considering contradictions in statements of victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, refusal of victim to undergo medical examination, non-recovery of alleged obscene photo/video, filing of charge-sheet, absence of criminal history, overcrowded jails and settled guidelines governing grant of bail - Investigating Officer censured for negligent failure to seize accused's mobile phone despite allegation of editing and circulating obscene material; cost imposed.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 180, 183; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 137(2), 70(2), 351(3); Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 5(g), 6; Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 Sections 3, 5(1), 5(3)
Raj Raeen v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3002525
