Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court has directed a woman investigating officer to remain in the custody of the Court until 4 PM and deposit ₹5,000 in the Army Welfare Fund after she admitted that she had mistakenly failed to seize the accused’s mobile phone during the investigation of a case involving allegations of editing and uploading obscene images or videos of a minor girl on social media. The Court expressed its displeasure over the investigating officer’s failure to collect an electronic device that could be crucial to establishing the alleged offence. However, while taking note of the lapse, the Court adopted a lenient approach and refrained from passing any formal stricture against the officer.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order while hearing the bail application filed by Raj Raeen, who was facing criminal charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The proceedings arose from allegations concerning the alleged manipulation of obscene photographs or videos of a minor girl and their subsequent circulation on social media platforms.
The case brought into focus the importance of collecting and preserving electronic evidence in investigations involving alleged online offences against children. In cases where the alleged criminal activity involves digital images, videos or social media uploads, a mobile phone may contain material evidence capable of establishing the circumstances in which the content was created, edited, stored, transmitted or published. Failure to examine such a device can potentially affect the completeness and reliability of the investigation.
The issue had already attracted judicial attention in an earlier proceeding. The High Court had examined the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which contained allegations concerning the uploading of edited images or videos on social media. Despite these allegations, the investigating officer had not recovered the accused’s mobile phone for forensic or other appropriate examination.
In view of this omission, the Court directed Anita Varma, the investigating officer attached to Moosa Nagar Police Station in Kanpur Dehat, to appear personally before it and explain why the mobile phone had not been collected during the investigation.
The officer subsequently appeared and admitted that she had mistakenly failed to collect the device. She also informed the Court that, after receiving a copy of its earlier order, she had been attempting to obtain the mobile phone while the investigation concerning a co-accused was still pending.
The Court considered this explanation against the background of its earlier decision in Pankaj v. State of U.P., 2026, in which it had directed the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh to issue a circular requiring the collection of an accused’s mobile phone in cases of the relevant nature. Following that direction, the DGP had issued a circular in July 2026 to police officers.
Against this background, the High Court considered the investigating officer’s omission particularly serious. The failure to collect the mobile phone was not merely a procedural oversight, in the Court’s assessment, because the device was potentially relevant to allegations specifically concerning the manipulation and uploading of digital content. The Court described the lapse as negligent and observed that it was also contemptuous in the circumstances.
Nevertheless, the Court distinguished between expressing judicial displeasure and imposing a more severe formal condemnation. Taking a lenient view because the officer was a woman police officer, it refrained from passing any stricture against her, while directing her to deposit ₹5,000 in the Army Welfare Fund and remain in the Court’s custody until 4 PM.
Separately, the Court proceeded to consider the merits of Raj Raeen’s bail application. After examining the circumstances of the case, including contradictions between the victim’s statements, the absence of a medical examination and the nature of the allegations and evidence, the Court allowed the bail application subject to conditions intended to protect the investigation and the trial.
Arguments of the Parties:
The dispute before the Allahabad High Court involved two distinct but connected issues. The first concerned the accused’s entitlement to bail in a criminal case involving allegations under the BNS, the POCSO Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The second concerned the investigating officer’s failure to collect the accused’s mobile phone despite the relevance of electronic evidence to the allegations recorded in the victim’s statement.
The available case summary does not reproduce the complete submissions advanced by the accused’s counsel or the State’s counsel. Accordingly, the respective positions must be understood in the context of the issues considered by the Court, rather than as a verbatim account of arguments that are not available in the supplied material.
On behalf of the accused, the principal issue was whether the circumstances of the case justified continued detention or whether bail could appropriately be granted while the criminal proceedings continued. The defence position was considered against the material available to the Court, particularly the inconsistencies between the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS.
Section 180 of the BNSS concerns the examination of witnesses by the police during an investigation, while Section 183 deals with the recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate. Statements recorded under these provisions serve different procedural purposes, and their contents may become relevant when the Court evaluates the material collected during the investigation. In the present matter, the Court took note of contradictions between the victim’s statements recorded under these two provisions while assessing the bail application.
The defence also had the benefit of the investigating officer’s admitted failure to collect the accused’s mobile phone. Given that the allegations involved the alleged editing and uploading of digital content, the absence of the device from the investigation raised questions concerning the completeness of the evidence-gathering process. However, the failure to seize a device does not, by itself, establish that the accused is innocent or that the allegations are false. Its significance depends on the role of the device in the alleged offence, the other evidence available and the stage of the proceedings.
Another circumstance considered by the Court was the refusal to conduct the victim’s medical examination. The precise reasons for that refusal are not detailed in the available summary, and it would therefore be inappropriate to attribute a particular explanation to either the victim or the investigating agency. Nevertheless, the Court considered the absence of a medical examination as one of the relevant circumstances while assessing the bail request.
The defence case, viewed in this context, concerned the cumulative effect of the available evidence, the inconsistencies in the statements and the nature of the investigation. The Court was required to determine whether the accused could be released on bail without compromising the ongoing investigation, the safety of witnesses or the fairness of the eventual trial.
The State, on the other hand, had to address the seriousness of the allegations and the need to ensure that the criminal proceedings were not obstructed. Allegations involving the editing and dissemination of obscene images or videos of a minor raise significant concerns regarding the protection of children and the potential misuse of digital technology. The offences alleged against the accused were not confined to an ordinary dispute but involved conduct that, if established, could attract criminal liability under the applicable statutory provisions.
From the prosecution’s perspective, the investigation had to establish the authenticity and origin of the alleged digital material, determine whether the accused had participated in its editing or dissemination and identify the circumstances surrounding its circulation. The mobile phone could potentially assist in verifying these matters. Consequently, collecting the device and examining its contents through appropriate investigative procedures would be important to developing a reliable evidentiary record.
The State also had to contend with the Court’s concern regarding the investigating officer’s failure to follow the requirement highlighted in the earlier decision in Pankaj v. State of U.P. The DGP’s circular, issued in July 2026 pursuant to the Court’s directions, demonstrated that the importance of collecting mobile phones in relevant cases had already been brought to the attention of police officers.
When the investigating officer appeared before the Court, she admitted that she had mistakenly failed to collect the accused’s phone. She explained that, after receiving the Court’s order, she had been attempting to obtain it during the pending investigation involving a co-accused. Her explanation therefore acknowledged the omission while indicating that steps were being taken to obtain the device subsequently.
The Court had to assess this explanation in light of the earlier judicial directions and the significance of the electronic evidence. The officer’s admission did not eliminate the consequences of the omission, particularly because the case involved allegations concerning digital content and the victim’s statement referred to its uploading on social media.
At the same time, the Court was mindful of the distinction between the investigating officer’s lapse and the question of the accused’s entitlement to bail. The failure to collect the phone called for judicial scrutiny of the investigation, but the bail application had to be assessed independently on the relevant facts, circumstances and available material.
Thus, the proceedings required the Court to balance two important considerations: the need for a fair and effective investigation into alleged offences against a minor, and the need to assess whether continued pre-trial detention was justified in the circumstances of the individual case.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal examined the investigating officer’s failure to collect the accused’s mobile phone against the background of the allegations and the Court’s previous directions concerning electronic evidence. The Court’s observations highlighted the responsibility of investigating officers to carry out investigations carefully, particularly when the alleged offence involves digital material that may be central to determining what occurred.
The victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS contained allegations concerning the uploading of edited images or videos on social media. In a case involving such allegations, the accused’s mobile phone could potentially contain the original images, edited versions, relevant files, application data, communication records or other digital material capable of assisting the investigation. The evidentiary value of any such material would, of course, depend on what the examination actually revealed and whether the material could be properly authenticated.
The failure to collect the phone therefore raised a legitimate concern about whether an important line of investigation had been adequately pursued. Electronic evidence can be particularly significant in cases involving online misconduct because the alleged act may leave traces on devices or within digital accounts. A thorough investigation may require the identification, preservation, acquisition and forensic examination of relevant electronic material in accordance with applicable legal procedures.
The Court had previously directed Anita Varma, the investigating officer at Moosa Nagar Police Station in Kanpur Dehat, to appear personally and explain the omission. This direction reflected the Court’s concern that the absence of the mobile phone required an explanation from the officer responsible for the investigation.
When the officer appeared, she admitted that she had mistakenly failed to collect the device. She further stated that, after receiving the Court’s earlier order, she had been trying to obtain it during the investigation concerning a co-accused.
The Court considered this explanation but did not treat the omission as inconsequential. The fact that the officer had subsequently attempted to collect the phone did not erase the earlier failure, especially in view of the allegations and the importance of examining the digital evidence.
A significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning was its reliance on its earlier decision in Pankaj v. State of U.P., delivered in 2026. In that case, the High Court had directed the Director General of Police to issue a circular requiring the collection of the accused’s mobile phone in cases of the relevant nature.
The direction was intended to address the investigative importance of mobile phones in cases where electronic evidence could play a crucial role. Following the Court’s intervention, the DGP issued a circular in July 2026 to police officers.
The existence of that circular was an important consideration in the present proceedings. It indicated that the need to collect mobile phones in relevant cases had already been brought to the attention of the police administration. Against this background, the investigating officer’s failure to collect the device was viewed as more serious than an omission occurring without any prior institutional guidance.
The Court observed that the lapse demonstrated negligence in conducting the investigation and was also contemptuous, particularly because the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS contained allegations that made the mobile phone relevant to the case.
The Court’s use of the term “contemptuous” conveyed the seriousness with which it viewed the failure to act consistently with the judicial directions and the importance of the evidence. However, the operative order, as reflected in the supplied case summary, imposed a cost and directed the officer to remain in the Court’s custody until a specified time. The available material does not establish that the Court initiated or concluded separate contempt proceedings or formally convicted the officer of contempt. The observation should therefore be understood in the context of the Court’s criticism of the lapse, rather than treated as a separate contempt conviction.
Despite expressing its displeasure, the Court adopted a lenient approach. It expressly refrained from passing any formal stricture against the investigating officer because she was a woman officer. Instead, it directed her to deposit ₹5,000 in the Army Welfare Fund as a cost and instructed her to be careful in future.
The Court recorded its direction in the following terms:
“This Court expressed its displeasure on this negligence but taking a lenient view, refrains from passing any stricture against the above I.O. being lady officer but directs her to deposit Rs. 5,000/- in the Army Welfare Fund as a cost and to be careful in future.”
The direction was accompanied by a further restriction on the officer’s movement. The Court ordered that she should not leave the Court and must remain in its custody until 4 PM, after which she would be released or permitted to leave.
The order was therefore specific in its duration. It required the investigating officer to remain in the Court’s custody only until the stated time and did not, on the information available, impose any longer period of detention. The officer was also required to submit the receipt confirming the deposit of the ₹5,000 cost before the concerned Magistrate.
The directions served to underscore the importance of accountability in criminal investigations. Investigating officers are entrusted with substantial responsibility because the quality of their work can affect the collection and preservation of evidence, the protection of victims and the fairness of proceedings against accused persons. Where an omission concerns potentially material electronic evidence, the Court may require an explanation and issue directions intended to ensure that investigative responsibilities are taken seriously.
At the same time, the Court’s approach was measured. Although it criticised the investigating officer’s conduct, it did not pass formal strictures against her. The direction to deposit the cost, remain in the Court’s custody until 4 PM and exercise greater care in future reflected the Court’s decision to address the lapse without imposing a more severe formal condemnation.
After dealing with the investigating officer’s failure, the High Court turned to the merits of Raj Raeen’s bail application. The Court considered the contradictions between the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, the refusal to conduct the victim’s medical examination, the nature of the alleged offences and the evidence available against the accused.
The contradictions between the statements were relevant to the Court’s assessment of the material at the bail stage. Statements recorded during an investigation may differ in their details, and the significance of any inconsistency depends on its nature, context and relationship to the allegations. Such differences do not automatically establish that a witness is unreliable or that the prosecution case must fail. Their effect is ordinarily assessed in conjunction with the other evidence and the circumstances in which the statements were made.
Similarly, the absence of a medical examination was one of the factors considered by the Court, but the supplied summary does not indicate that the Court treated it as independently decisive. The significance of a medical examination depends on the nature of the allegations and the evidence sought to be established. In a case involving alleged editing and online circulation of images or videos, electronic evidence may be particularly important, although the relevance of other forms of evidence must be assessed according to the specific allegations.
The Court also considered the nature of the offences and the evidence against the accused. These considerations are central to bail adjudication, which requires the Court to evaluate the circumstances of the case rather than merely rely on the seriousness of the allegations in isolation. The decision to grant bail does not amount to an acquittal, nor does it establish that the allegations are false. It permits the accused to remain at liberty while complying with the conditions imposed by the Court and participating in the ongoing proceedings.
After considering these circumstances, the High Court allowed Raj Raeen’s bail application. The relief was made subject to conditions designed to prevent interference with the investigation or trial.
The accused was directed not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. He was also required to cooperate with the investigation and trial and not seek adjournments. Further, he was directed not to indulge in criminal activity after his release.
These conditions reflected the Court’s concern that the grant of bail should not undermine the administration of justice. Preventing interference with witnesses and the manipulation of evidence is particularly important where the allegations involve digital material that may require further investigation or examination. The obligation to cooperate wth the proceedings is likewise intended to ensure th