Allahabad HC Rejects Bail, Orders Mental Examination of Accused Who Blackmailed Victim With Obscene Photos on Instagram
The Allahabad High Court refused bail to a man accused of hacking a victim's phone, posting obscene photographs on Instagram, and demanding Rs 5 lakh to delete them.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, rejected the bail application of Rahul Kumar Saroj on 17 July 2026. Saroj had been in custody since 25 January 2026 in connection with Case Crime No. 41 of 2026, registered at Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi. The court declined to grant bail after personally perusing the messages, letters, and social media posts recovered during investigation, finding that the applicant had been continuously blackmailing the victim even after an earlier arrest and grant of bail in a prior FIR. Going a step further, the court directed the Chief Medical Officer, Kaushambi, to conduct a mental examination of the applicant, observing from the material on record that he did not appear to be a person of sound mind.
Two FIRs, One Course of Conduct
The case before the court arose from a pattern of conduct that began before the present FIR. The victim had earlier lodged Case Crime No. 430 of 2025 on 13 December 2025, alleging that Saroj had hacked her mobile phone, obtained obscene photographs, and used them to blackmail and threaten her on social media. Police arrested Saroj in connection with that case and he was subsequently released on bail.
According to the prosecution, release did not end the harassment. After being bailed in the earlier matter, Saroj resumed threatening and blackmailing the victim. He demanded Rs 5 lakh as a condition for deleting her obscene video and photographs, posting material on Instagram and sending filthy messages not only to the victim but also to her relatives. This conduct gave rise to the present FIR, Case Crime No. 41 of 2026, under Sections 64(1), 74, 351(2), 352, and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.
The victim's statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita narrated the entire sequence of events. She stated that although she had been in a relationship with the applicant, he later used her obscene video and photographs to extort money from her.
Applicant's Plea and the Court's Assessment of the Material
Sri Ajay Pandey, counsel for the applicant, advanced the standard plea that the victim had voluntarily been in a relationship with Saroj, and when he refused to marry her, she lodged the FIR and falsely implicated him. It was also submitted that a charge sheet had already been filed, removing any necessity for custodial interrogation, and that Saroj had been in jail since 25 January 2026 without misusing any earlier liberty.
Sri Surya Mani Pandey, counsel for the first informant, and Sri Roshan Kumar Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, opposed bail. They placed before the court the messages sent by the applicant to the victim and her relatives, the obscene photographs posted on social media, and the letters sent by the applicant — all recovered during investigation. The material was produced for the court's perusal.
Justice Deshwal examined the messages, photographs, and letters personally. The court's conclusion was unambiguous: even accepting that the applicant may have been in a relationship with the victim, the material showed he had subsequently used her obscene photographs and videos to systematically blackmail her. The messages were found to contain filthy language and to demand large sums of money in exchange for deletion of the content. The court observed that the nature and language of the messages, and the photographs posted on social media, did not support release on bail.
The court also drew attention to the applicant's conduct after his earlier release on bail in Case Crime No. 430 of 2025. The resumption of threats and blackmail after that earlier bail was a material consideration weighing against a second grant of bail.
Direction for Mental Examination
After rejecting bail, the court made a direction that goes beyond the ordinary disposal of a bail application. On the basis of the messages and social media posts placed before it, the court recorded that “the applicant is not a person of sound mind.” It accordingly directed the Chief Medical Officer, Kaushambi, to conduct a mental examination of Saroj and to keep the report on the record of the case file before the concerned District Court.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the CMO, Kaushambi for compliance.
Outcome
The bail application in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18318 of 2026 was rejected. Rahul Kumar Saroj remains in judicial custody. The CMO, Kaushambi is directed to conduct his mental examination and file the report before the concerned District Court, Kaushambi. The Registrar (Compliance) is responsible for communicating the order to the CMO.