The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has rejected the bail application of a man accused of cyber-stalking and harassment while issuing a significant directive regarding the conduct of law enforcement officials towards state law officers. In a proceedings marked by concerns over institutional discipline, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal underscored that public officials, regardless of their rank, must accord proper respect to government counsel who serve as representatives of the court. The order further mandated the Director General of Police for Uttar Pradesh to issue a formal circular reinforcing this expectation, warning that any future misbehaviour would be treated as contempt of court and addressed with the full severity of the law.

The case centered on the bail plea of Sachin Yadav, who had been in custody since March 1, 2025, following his arrest in connection with charges under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alongside Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act. Allegations against the applicant suggested that after a marriage proposal between him and the victim was arranged, he remained in close contact with her. Prosecutors submitted that the applicant surreptitiously created, recorded, and later uploaded obscene videos and photographs of the victim onto a fake Facebook account created under the name of "Rakesh Yadav" after she refused to pay a demand for ₹2 lakh.

Judicial Oversight of Institutional Conduct

The court’s observations regarding the treatment of legal counsel were prompted by an incident involving the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in Azamgarh, Rajesh Kumar Singh. It was brought to the court’s attention that during a telephone communication, the PRO had behaved improperly toward Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Anurag Pandey, who was relaying court instructions for compliance. Viewing this as a direct affront to the judicial process, Justice Deshwal articulated a firm stance on the role of state law officers.

"Whenever they inform to any officer about the compliance of the order of this Court, they are discharging their duty in compliance of the order of the Court and misbehaving with them by any officer may be the top-most officer of the State will amount to contempt," the court observed.

While the court acknowledged that the SSP of Azamgarh had taken swift corrective action by issuing a show-cause notice to the PRO and removing him from his post, the bench nonetheless decided that further measures were required. As a consequence of the misconduct, the court directed that Rajesh Kumar Singh remain in the court’s custody until 5:00 PM on the day of the hearing. This decision served as a symbolic and practical reinforcement of the court's authority and the protection afforded to those acting in an official capacity on behalf of the judiciary.

Challenges in Warrant Execution and Administrative Accountability

The proceedings also addressed significant procedural lapses concerning the execution of non-bailable warrants (NBWs) issued by the High Court against the investigating officer, Inspector Vinay Kumar Mishra. The SSP of Azamgarh, Dr. Anil Kumar-II, appeared before the court to provide a compliance affidavit, detailing the internal failures that led to the delay. The affidavit revealed that while communications regarding the warrant were forwarded to the local police station and formally entered in the general diary, a sub-inspector, Subhash Singh, had received the documents but failed to take the necessary action.

The court conducted a critical review of this negligence, noting that a preliminary enquiry had already been initiated against the Station House Officer (SHO) of Maharajganj and the sub-inspector involved. Addressing the SSP’s admission of error in not personally overseeing the arrest, Justice Deshwal clarified the legal standard for such directives. "The correct legal position is whenever any police officer receives an NBW issued by the High Court to be executed by him, then he should personally ensure the arrest of that person and produce him/her before the High Court as in NBW issued by the High Court , district court can grant bail."

While the court decided to close the matter against the SSP, citing his otherwise unblemished record and his notable humane efforts in public service, it stressed the necessity for greater vigilance in executing court-mandated arrests.

Evaluation of Bail and Cyber Evidence

Turning to the merits of the bail application, the court carefully reviewed the evidence presented by the State, particularly the findings of the Cyber Cell. The prosecution maintained that the digital evidence, including the creation of the fraudulent Facebook profile on September 8, 2024, directly implicated the applicant in the criminal distribution of sensitive and obscene material.

The defense had argued for the applicant’s release on the grounds of his lack of criminal history and his prolonged detention, asserting that the fake account was not linked to him. However, after considering the technical evidence provided by the Cyber Cell, the court found the submissions of the prosecution compelling. The bench concluded that the applicant’s active role in fabricating the digital identity and subsequently disseminating the victim's private information rendered him ineligible for bail at the current stage of the trial. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

The High Court has now directed the Registrar (Compliance) to forward a copy of the order to the Director General of Police for Uttar Pradesh to ensure that the instruction regarding the treatment of State Law Officers is disseminated effectively to all police personnel across the state. The matter remains pending trial in the lower courts, with the current status of the accused remaining in judicial custody.