Police Officers Who Misbehave With Lawyers Relaying Court Orders Will Face Contempt: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to issue a circular warning police officers that misbehaviour with a high court state law officer while the officer is communicating a court order for compliance will be treated as contempt.

"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," ordered the bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal.

Court was dealing with a bail application in a case registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)[earlier Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)] and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act.

During the proceedings, court took note of the misbehaviour by Rajesh Kumar Singh, the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Azamgarh, towards Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Anurag Pandey.

The incident occurred when Pandey was attempting to inform Singh over the phone about court's one order dated September 16, 2026. Court noted that the PRO had misbehaved with the AGA while he was conveying the order.

Observing that AGAs are officers of the court and communicate judicial orders to officials as part of their duty, the bench said that misbehaviour with them by any officer, irrespective of rank, may amount to contempt.

"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," court observed.

Court, however, noted that the SSP had issued a show-cause notice to the PRO and removed him from the post after learning of the incident.

Appreciating the prompt action, Justice Deshwal directed that the PRO be taken into custody and remain in the court's custody until 5 pm, after which he was to be released.

Another issue of failure to comply with court's directions concerning a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against investigating officer Vinay Kumar Mishra came to light. 

Pursuant to court's order, the SSP, Azamgarh, Dr Anil Kumar-II, appeared before the court and filed an affidavit explaining the sequence of events. He informed that a communication regarding compliance had been forwarded to the relevant police units, but Sub-Inspector Subash Singh had kept the letter with himself instead of acting on it. A preliminary inquiry also found the Station House Officer (SHO) of Maharajganj police station negligent in complying with the court's order. SSP stated that show-cause notices had been issued to both officers and appropriate action will be taken against them.

The SSP apologised for not personally executing the NBW against the investigating officer, as he was under the impression that ensuring the officer's presence was sufficient for compliance.

"Though this is not the correct legal position," Justice Deshwal said, clarifying that whenever any police officer receives an NBW issued by the high court to be executed by him, then he should personally ensure the arrest of that person and produce him/her before the high court.

Court, however, closed the matter against the SSP without passing any further order, taking into account his unblemished record and expressing the expectation that he would be more careful in future.

Separately, court appreciated the SSP's prompt action against the PRO and his humanitarian gesture of adopting the two minor daughters of a criminal who had killed his wife and another child, who later died in a police encounter.

In the bail application, court noted that the allegations against the accused were that after his marriage was fixed with a woman, he developed a relationship with her and prepared obscene video and photographs of her. Thereafter, he started blackmailing her. When the woman refused to pay him Rs. 2 lacs, he uploaded those videos and photographs on a fake Facebook ID. 

The counsel for the accused submitted that the concerned Facebook ID did not belong to him and he had been falsely implicated in the matter. He also submitted that the accused had no criminal history, had been in custody since March 1, 2025, and would cooperate with the trial if released on bail.

However, opposing the plea, the AGA submitted that the pendrive and the Cyber Cell report indicated that the accused had created the fake Facebook account on September 8, 2024, and subsequently uploaded the obscene material of the victim through it.

Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties and taking into account the report of the Cyber Cell, court held that it was clear that the accused had created the Facebook ID and uploaded the obscene video and photograph. Therefore, court declined to grant him any relief and rejected the bail application. 

Case Title: Sachin Yadav v. State of U.P.

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

Order Date: October 12, 2026