Taking serious note of the non-seizure of mobile phones of the accused in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) case despite allegations that obscene videos and photographs of the victim had been prepared using those devices, the Allahabad high court directed the superintendent of police, Jaunpur, to conduct an inquiry against the investigating officer concerned.
Passing this order, the high court noted that it had already issued directions in a 2026 case requiring the director general of police, Uttar Pradesh, to instruct all the district police chiefs to apprise the IO in their respective districts that whenever an allegation is made regarding preparation of an obscene video or clicking of photographs by the accused through their mobile phones, the phones of the accused should be seized by the IO concerned and, if required, be sent to the FSL for examination.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order on July 23 while granting bail to the accused/applicant facing a criminal case registered under some sections of Bharaitya Nyaya Sanhita and Pocso Act at Mungarabadshahpur police station of Jaunpur.
“From the facts of the present case, it is clear that the police was highly negligent in not seizing the mobile phones of the applicant and the co-accused to test the veracity of the victim’s allegation regarding preparation of her obscene videos or photographs,” the court observed.
{{/usCountry}}“From the facts of the present case, it is clear that the police was highly negligent in not seizing the mobile phones of the applicant and the co-accused to test the veracity of the victim’s allegation regarding preparation of her obscene videos or photographs,” the court observed.
{{/usCountry}}The court said there was negligence on the part of the concerned police official. However, on the merits of the case, the court granted bail to the accused Rohit Yadav, noting that although the FIR and the victim’s statements alleged that the accused and the co-accused had blackmailed her using obscene videos and photographs allegedly recorded during an earlier trip, no such videos or photographs were recovered during the investigation.
The court also took into account the victim’s medical examination report, the nature of the offence, the evidence, the complicity of the accused, and the fact that a similarly situated co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.