Court directs strict action against police officers for non-compliance of non-bailable warrant and misbehavior with State Law Officer; emphasizes personal responsibility in executing High Court warrants.
The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, on 12th October 2026, rejected the bail application of Sachin Yadav, accused under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The accused was alleged to have created a fake Facebook ID and uploaded obscene videos and photographs of the victim, who was earlier engaged to him, thereby blackmailing her.
The prosecution case, supported by a Cyber Cell report, established that the applicant had fabricated a fake Facebook account in the name of "Rakesh Yadav" on 8th September 2024, and used it to post explicit material of the victim after she refused to pay Rs. 2 lakhs demanded by the accused. The court noted the electronic evidence and held that the applicant was not entitled to bail at this stage, given the serious nature of the offense and the evidence gathered.
Apart from the bail rejection, the court addressed grave concerns regarding police conduct during the case. A non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued by the High Court against the Investigating Officer (I.O.), Vinay Kumar Mishra, was not executed properly. The Superintendent of Police (SSP), Azamgarh, Dr. Anil Kumar-II, admitted an error in assuming that merely ensuring the presence of the person named in the warrant sufficed, instead of personally arresting and producing him before the court. The court clarified the legal position that personal arrest and production are mandatory when executing NBWs issued by the High Court.
Further, the court expressed serious displeasure over the conduct of the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the SSP, Rajesh Kumar Singh, who misbehaved with the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.), Sri Anurag Pandey, while communicating the court's order. The court held that such misbehavior with State Law Officers, who are officers of the court, amounts to contempt of court. As a consequence, the PRO was taken into custody by the court till 5 p.m. on the same day and was removed from his post by the SSP. The court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue a circular instructing all police officers that any misbehavior with State Law Officers during discharge of their court duties will be treated as contempt and dealt with strictly.
The court also appreciated the humane gesture of the SSP, Azamgarh, who had adopted two minor daughters of a criminal, an act widely appreciated in media and social platforms.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court emphasized strict adherence to legal procedures regarding execution of court orders, especially NBWs, and underscored the sanctity of court officers by warning against any misconduct by police personnel. The bail application of Sachin Yadav was rejected, and the court's directions on police conduct and compliance were mandated for immediate implementation.
Bottom Line:
Bail in offence under Section 64(1) B.N.S. and Sections 66E, 67A of I.T. Act was rejected where Cyber Cell report showed that applicant had created fake Facebook ID and uploaded obscene video and photographs of victim. Misbehaviour by police officer with learned A.G.A. while communicating Court's order held to amount to contempt; D.G.P. directed to issue circular. High Court also clarified that when non-bailable warrant issued by High Court is entrusted to police officer, he must personally ensure arrest and production of person before High Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 64(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 66E, 67A Information Technology Act, 2000
Sachin Yadav v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996331
