Allahabad HC Grants Bail in POCSO Case, Orders Inquiry Against IO for Failing to Seize Mobile Phones

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a POCSO accused and directed the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, to probe the Investigating Officer’s failure to seize mobile phones central to the victim’s allegations.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on 23 July 2026 allowed the bail application filed by Rohit Yadav, an accused under Sections 137(2), 70, 352, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The case, registered as Crime No. 302 of 2025 at Police Station Mungarabadshahpur, District Jaunpur, turned substantially on the police’s failure to seize the mobile phones of the accused persons despite the victim’s own statement alleging that obscene videos and photographs of her had been made. That investigative lapse, the court found, cast genuine doubt on the prosecution’s case and also warranted a separate disciplinary inquiry.

The Allegations and the Prosecution Case

According to the FIR and the victim’s statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, the victim had left her home on two occasions voluntarily — first travelling to Bombay with the applicant and a co-accused, Sandeep Kumar, and later to Delhi. The victim alleged that during the first trip to Bombay, the accused persons recorded obscene videos and took photographs of her, and subsequently used that material to blackmail her into accompanying them to Delhi.

The applicant’s counsel, Sri Yadvendra Mani Mishra, pointed out that neither the FIR nor the investigation had produced any such videos or photographs. Crucially, the police had not seized the mobile phones of the applicant or the co-accused at any stage of the investigation to verify whether such material existed. The medical examination report of the victim, counsel submitted, also did not indicate sexual assault.

The first informant’s counsel, Sri Raj Kumar, appearing along with Sri Laxmi Dubey, opposed bail and conceded that the police had been negligent in not seizing the mobile phones. He could not, however, dispute that the victim had accompanied the applicant and co-accused on her own free will on both occasions, and that no obscene material appeared in the case diary despite being central to the victim’s account.

Parity with Co-Accused and Prior Apex Court Rejection

A critical factor before the court was that co-accused Sandeep Kumar had already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6602 of 2026 vide order dated 25 March 2026. The first informant had challenged that order before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6587 of 2026, but the Supreme Court rejected the challenge on 14 July 2026.

Rohit Yadav’s counsel argued that the applicant had an identical role to that of the co-accused already released. The charge-sheet had been filed, removing any need for custodial interrogation. The applicant had no criminal history and had been in custody since 26 January 2026.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Deshwal considered the totality of facts: the absence of obscene videos or photographs in the case diary despite the victim’s allegations, the medical examination report that did not indicate sexual assault, the co-accused having already been enlarged on bail with the Supreme Court declining to interfere, and the identical role attributed to Rohit Yadav. The court took into account the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, and the Allahabad High Court’s own guidelines in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 6765, on the grant of bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the trial, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The court then went further. It recorded that the police had been “highly negligent” in not seizing the mobile phones of the applicant and the co-accused. The court noted that it had already, in Pankaj v. State of U.P., Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC:146676, directed the Director General of Police, U.P., to instruct all District Police Chiefs that whenever an allegation is made of an accused preparing obscene videos or photographs through a mobile phone, the device must be seized by the Investigating Officer and, if required, sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The present case disclosed the same investigative failure.

Direction Against the Investigating Officer

Acting on that finding, the court directed the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, to conduct an inquiry against the Investigating Officer concerned regarding the failure to seize the mobile phones of the applicant and the co-accused. A copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the Superintendent of Police through the Registrar (Compliance).

The court also directed the court concerned to verify the identity, status, and residence proof of the applicant and sureties before accepting bonds, and to verify the mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant and sureties. The release order was to be transmitted to the concerned jail through the Bail Order Management System. A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the applicant through the Jail Superintendent, Jaunpur, via e-mail or the e-prison portal and to the trial court via e-mode within 24 hours, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, and Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025.

Bail Conditions

Bail was granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: the applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case; he shall cooperate in the trial or investigation without seeking adjournments; he shall not indulge in any criminal activity after release; and he shall attend in accordance with the conditions of his bond. Breach of any condition was stated to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Order

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11073 of 2026 was allowed. Rohit Yadav was directed to be released on bail in Crime No. 302 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 70, 352, and 351(3) BNS and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Mungarabadshahpur, District Jaunpur, upon compliance with the bond and conditions. The Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, was separately directed to hold an inquiry into the Investigating Officer’s negligence regarding the non-seizure of mobile phones.