The of Judicature at Allahabad has taken a stern stance against , directing the (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue a prohibiting police officers from misbehaving with government advocates. The ruling follows an incident where a Public Relations Officer (PRO) to the (SSP), Azamgarh, allegedly misbehaved with an Additional Government Advocate (AGA) while the latter was attempting to inform him about a . This serves as a reminder of the protection afforded to when acting as conduits for court directions.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal underscored that Additional Government Advocates (AGAs) act as essential . Their role in communicating judicial decisions is not merely administrative; it is a vital part of the court's function. The bench observed that any form of intimidation or disrespect directed at these officials while they perform their duties constitutes a significant breach of and potentially amounts to .
Ensuring Integrity in Legal Communication
The specific incident involving the former PRO, Rajesh Kumar Singh, prompted immediate action from the court. During the proceedings, it was brought to the bench's attention that the PRO had misbehaved with AGA , who was attempting to communicate an order dated . The court noted the severity of this conduct, emphasizing that such behavior is unacceptable regardless of the perpetrator's rank within the state police hierarchy.
Rather than issuing formal strictures that might impede the individual’s long-term service, the court ordered that the PRO be taken into custody within the court premises until 5 PM on the day of the hearing. This decisive action was intended to signal that contemptuous behavior directed toward the machinery of justice will not be tolerated. The SSP of Azamgarh, Dr. Anil Kumar-II, informed the court that upon learning of the incident, he had already issued a to the officer and removed him from the post of PRO, a move the court viewed with appreciation.
Reflecting on the duty of law officers, the court remarked,
"Whenever they inform to any officer about the
of the order of this Court, they are discharging their duty in
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."
Police Accountability and Non-Bailable Warrants
Beyond the immediate case of the PRO, the proceedings shed light on systemic issues regarding the execution of issued by the . The SSP of Azamgarh submitted an affidavit of concerning an outstanding NBW against an investigating officer. The investigation revealed that while the court’s order was received by the police station, it had been neglected by a sub-inspector, leading to a breakdown in execution.
The court took exception to the police's handling of these warrants, clarifying the legal obligations of senior officers. The SSP had initially expressed a belief that simply ensuring an official's presence was sufficient for , but the court corrected this misconception. The bench clarified that whenever a police officer is tasked with executing an NBW issued by the , they are personally responsible for the arrest and production of the accused before the court.
As Justice Deshwal articulated,
"The correct legal position is whenever any police officer receives an NBW issued by the
to be executed by him, then he should personally ensure the arrest of that person and produce him/her before the
as in NBW issued by the
,
can grant bail."
While the court noted the negligence of the Station House Officer (SHO) and the sub-inspector involved, it chose to close the matter against the SSP due to his otherwise unblemished record and his proactive, humane gestures reported in the public sphere. However, the court did not shy away from stressing that future lapses in executing court-issued warrants would be viewed with far less leniency.
Bail Rejected in Cyberstalking Case
The overarching context for these administrative observations was the of one Sachin Yadav, who stands accused in a case involving serious allegations of blackmail and digital harassment. The FIR, registered at Police Station Maharajganj in Azamgarh, invokes and .
According to the prosecution, the applicant had entered into a relationship with the victim after their marriage was proposed. During this time, he allegedly recorded intimate videos and photographs of the victim. The accusations state that the applicant subsequently demanded money, and upon the victim's refusal, he uploaded the offensive material onto a fake Facebook profile created in the name of a third party.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the Facebook ID did not belong to the accused and that he had been falsely implicated in the case. However, the prosecution presented findings from the local , which indicated that the fake ID was specifically created on , and linked the applicant to the digital uploads through . Given the nature of the allegations and the evidence derived from the pendrive and technical investigation, the court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to the relief of bail at this stage of the proceedings.
The was accordingly rejected. The court’s order, while focusing on the technical merits of the criminal case, serves as a significant directive to the Uttar Pradesh police force, mandating a culture of and respect for the . The Registrar () has been tasked with ensuring that a copy of this order reaches the DGP to facilitate the issuance of the directed circular, reinforcing the protocol for all state law enforcement agencies.
judicial orders compliance - police conduct regulations - government advocate protection - cybercrime bail rejection - contempt of court proceedings
