Allahabad High Court Orders Inquiry Against Investigating Officer For Negligence In POCSO Bail Matter

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has granted bail to an applicant accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case, while simultaneously issuing a scathing rebuke of the investigative process. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal highlighted systemic flaws in how police departments handle digital evidence, leading to an official probe into the conduct of the investigating officer.

A Dispute Over Digital Evidence

The case involves allegations against the applicant, Rohit Yadav, who was accused under various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the POCSO Act. Central to the prosecution's narrative was the claim that the accused had blackmailed the victim using obscene videos and photographs recorded on mobile devices.

However, the defense successfully argued for bail by pointing out a critical gap in the investigation: despite the severity of the allegations, the police failed to seize the mobile phones belonging to the accused. Without these devices, the prosecution could not substantiate the existence of the incriminating media, casting significant doubt on the case's strength.

Judicial Scrutiny and Police Accountability

During the proceedings, it was noted that the victim had traveled willingly with the accused on multiple occasions to cities including Bombay and Delhi. When contrasted with the lack of physical evidence—specifically the absence of the alleged obscene materials—Justice Deshwal found the state’s case insufficient to justify continued incarceration.

Addressing the broader issue of departmental negligence, the Court invoked its previous directives regarding the handling of digital evidence. The Court emphasized that when allegations involve electronic communication or recordings, the failure to secure devices constitutes a "highly negligent" approach that jeopardizes the integrity of the trial.

Key Observations from the Bench

The Court’s order underscores the mandatory nature of proper investigative protocols:

  • "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."
  • "Whenever an allegation is made regarding preparation of an obscene video or clicking of photographs... the mobile phone should be seized by the Investigating Officer and... be sent to the FSL for examination."
  • "The Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur , is directed to conduct an enquiry against the Investigating Officer concerned regarding his negligence."

A New Standard for Investigations

By granting bail on the grounds of parity and lack of corroborative evidence, the court has set a firm precedent for law enforcement agencies across Uttar Pradesh. The Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, is now mandated to investigate the lapses in this case. This ruling sends a clear message that the judiciary will hold investigative officers strictly accountable for procedural failures that threaten the fairness of criminal trials. The applicant has been released on bail, subject to stringent conditions, including full cooperation with the trial and a prohibition against any form of witness intimidation.