Admitting that she had “mistakenly failed to collect the mobile phone of the applicant”, the POCSO case Investigating Officer was kept in custody till 4 PM by the Allahabad High Court, which also imposed Rs 5,000 as cost on her.
Allahabad: Allowing the bail application of an accused alleged to have edited and posted obscene material of a minor girl on social media, the Allahabad High Court has also directed the Investigating Officer, who admitted that she had mistakenly not collected his mobile phone, to remain in the Court’s custody till 4 PM and to deposit Rs 5,000 in the Army Welfare Fund as cost [Raj Raeen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others].
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal described the lapse as negligent and contemptuous, yet took a lenient view and passed no stricture against the officer, Ms Anita Varma. The charges against the accused, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, are allegations that remain untested. The Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the accused is presumed innocent.
A phone nobody had collected
The bail plea arose from a case registered in Kanpur Dehat district. As recorded in the order, the allegation is that the accused edited an obscene photograph or video of the minor complainant and uploaded it to social media, and the minor’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) referred to the uploads. When the matter was taken up on October 9, 2026, the Court noticed that the accused’s mobile phone, the very device on which the material was allegedly created, had not been recovered, and it summoned the Investigating Officer in person.
In the officer’s own words
Appearing in person, Ms Anita Varma, the Investigating Officer, accepted that she had
mistakenly failed to collect the mobile phone of the applicant.
Her explanation was that she had been trying to get hold of the phone ever since the Court’s earlier order. The Court was not satisfied. It recorded its displeasure and observed that the omission reflected negligence in the investigation and, given the circular already issued by the Director General of Police, was contemptuous as well.
Held in court until 4 o’clock
Refraining from any stricture against her “being lady officer” and choosing a lenient course, the Court directed that she
shall not leave the Court and shall remain in the custody of the Court until 4 o’clock.
After that she was to be let go. The cost of Rs 5,000 is to be deposited in the Army Welfare Fund, with the receipt submitted to the concerned Magistrate.
The directions she was measured against
The Court had spoken on seizure of phones before. In July 2026, while hearing another POCSO bail matter, Justice Deshwal found the police highly negligent for not seizing the accused’s phones and asked the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, to inquire into the Investigating Officer’s conduct. In Pankaj v. State of U.P., the Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue a circular making it mandatory to collect the accused’s mobile phone wherever there is an allegation of making or circulating an obscene video or photograph. That circular was issued on July 25, 2026, after the Court’s order of July 17, 2026.
Why bail was granted
The defence told the Court that the applicant has no criminal history, that the chargesheet has been filed and that he has been in custody since July 4, 2026. The State opposed bail but did not dispute those facts. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court looked at the contradictions between the minor’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the refusal of a medical examination, the nature of the offence and the evidence, and the overcrowding in jails, and allowed the application.
The accused must furnish a personal bond and two sureties, must not threaten or induce witnesses or tamper with evidence, must cooperate with the trial without seeking adjournments, and must not commit any offence. A breach may lead to cancellation of bail.
What investigators can take from the order
Where a case turns on digital material, the accused’s phone is often the best evidence either way. Left unseized and unexamined, an allegation about what was created on it can be neither proved nor tested. The Court has signalled that it expects officers to follow its directions and the Director General of Police’s circular on phone collection, and that a lapse will carry a personal consequence, here a day in the Court’s custody and a monetary cost, even where it stops short of a stricture.
The order also keeps the criminal case apart from the officer’s conduct. The bail grant rests on the record before the Court and carries no finding on guilt.
Case Title: Raj Raeen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36210 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 24, 2026
Appearances: Not recorded in the order.
If a child needs help: CHILDLINE 1098 (24×7, free).