The Allahabad High Court has observed that misbehaviour with a Government Advocate communicating a court order for compliance may amount to contempt of court, irrespective of the rank of the police officer involved. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to issue a circular instructing police personnel to treat such conduct seriously.
The Court passed the directions while hearing Sachin Yadav’s bail application in a case registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act.
Background
The prosecution alleged that after the applicant’s marriage was fixed with the victim, he prepared obscene videos and photographs of her and subsequently demanded ₹2 lakh. According to the allegations, the material was later uploaded to a fake Facebook account created in the name of Rakesh Yadav.
The applicant’s counsel denied the allegations, arguing that the Facebook account did not belong to him. The defence also pointed out that he had no criminal history and had remained in custody since March 1, 2025.
Opposing bail, the State relied on the Cyber Cell report and submitted that the applicant had created the fake account on September 8, 2024, and uploaded the objectionable material through it.
During the proceedings, the Court examined the failure to execute a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against the investigating officer, Vinay Kumar Mishra. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Azamgarh, informed the Court that a preliminary inquiry had found negligence on the part of the concerned Station House Officer and Sub-Inspector Subhash Singh. Show-cause notices had been issued to them.
The Court clarified that merely ensuring an officer’s presence was not sufficient when a non-bailable warrant issued by the High Court required execution.
Addressing the alleged misbehaviour by SSP Azamgarh’s Public Relations Officer (PRO), Rajesh Kumar Singh, with Government Advocate Anurag Pandey, the Court observed:
“learned AGAs are officers of the Court. 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 SSP informed the Court that a show-cause notice had been issued to the PRO and that he had been removed from the post. The Court appreciated the prompt action.
It further directed the DGP to issue a circular to all police officers, stating:
“whenever any State Law Officer of the High Court informs about the order of this Court for compliance, then any misbehaviour on the part of any officer will be treated as a contempt of this Court and shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law.”
The Court also directed that the PRO be taken into custody until 5 pm on the day of the order, after which he was to be released.
On the bail plea, the Court considered the submissions of both sides and the Cyber Cell report. It concluded that the material before it did not justify granting bail at that stage.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected Sachin Yadav’s bail application. It also directed the Registrar (Compliance) to send a copy of the order to the Uttar Pradesh DGP for necessary compliance.
Case Details
Case Title: Sachin Yadav v. State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33570 of 2025
Judge: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Decision Date: October 12, 2026
