Allahabad High Court Orders Inquiry Against IO For Failing To Seize Mobiles In POCSO Case To Verify Obscene Video Allegations
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday directed the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, to conduct an enquiry against an Investigating Officer (IO) who failed to seize the mobile phones of the accused in a POCSO case despite allegations that obscene videos and photographs of the victim had been prepared using those devices.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order while granting bail to the applicant-accused facing a criminal case registered under Sections 137(2), 70, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act.
The Court observed thus:
"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 further 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 his mobile phone, the mobile phone of the accused as well as any other mobile phone alleged to have been used in the preparation of such obscene video or in forwarding the same should be seized by the Investigating Officer and, if required, be sent to the FSL for examination.
Observing that the same lapse had occurred in the present case, the Court said there was negligence on the part of the concerned police official.
Accordingly, it directed the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, to conduct an enquiry against the Investigating Officer concerned regarding his negligence in not seizing the mobile phones of the applicant and the co-accused to determine whether any obscene videos or photographs were prepared by the accused persons.
On the merits of the case, the Court granted bail while noting that although the FIR and the victim's statements alleged that the applicant 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.
While granting the relief, the Court also took into account the medical examination report of the victim, as well as the nature of the offence, the evidence, and the complicity of the accused, and the fact that a similarly situated co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.
Case Title: Rohit Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465