The Allahabad High Court has issued a directive stating that private photos cannot be filed without prior court approval. Justice Ajay Bhanot emphasized that submitting such photographs, which reveal intimate moments between parties, infringes on privacy rights and can cause emotional distress.
Uttar Pradesh: This Month (3rd April): The Allahabad High Court directed that its registry seek court approval before accepting filings containing photographs depicting the private moments of the parties involved.
Justice Ajay Bhanot emphasized that submitting such photographs, which reveal intimate moments between parties, infringes on privacy rights and can cause emotional distress.
Advocates PK Singh and Sunil Kumar Pandey represented the accused, while Advocate Chandan Agarwal appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
“The registry is instructed that no private or indecent photographs shall be accepted without prior permission from the Court,” mandated the single-judge.
The court explicitly directed its registry not to accept private or indecent photographs without prior approval, citing the potential trauma such materials can inflict.
READ ALSO: Rajasthan High Court Cites Manusmriti, Orders Rs 3 Lakh for Minor Rape Survivors
“The applicant did not take any indecent photographs or videos of the victim, nor did they distribute such material. No indecent photographs or videos of the victim were found in the applicant’s possession,” stated the counsel representing the accused in court.
The Court issued this directive after observing that specific private photographs were included in a rejoinder affidavit submitted during a bail plea in a rape case. The accused sought bail, citing detention since November 23, 2023, and claimed a consensual relationship with the victim, noting that the rape allegation arose after their relationship deteriorated.
READ ALSO: Dalit Rape Case| Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Minor Girl’s Rape in Uttar Pradesh
The accused’s legal counsel clarified that no inappropriate media of the victim was captured or disseminated by their client, nor was any such material found in their possession.
After considering these arguments, the Court granted bail to the accused.
Case Title: Pradumn Gond vs State of UP.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
