loader image

Allahabad HC Rejects Bail in Obscene Video Blackmail Case, Pulls Up Police for NBW Non-Compliance and Misbehaviour with State Law Officer

Allahabad HC Rejects Bail in Obscene Video Blackmail Case, Pulls Up Police for NBW Non-Compliance and Misbehaviour with State Law Officer

Sachin Yadav vs State of U.P. [Decided on October 12, 2026]

Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has declined bail to an applicant accused of creating a fake Facebook ID and uploading obscene videos and photographs of the victim to blackmail her. Relying on the Cyber Cell report, which placed the creation of the fake ID and the upload squarely at the applicant’s doorstep, the Court held that bail was not warranted at this stage. Beyond the bail ruling, the Court proposed important compliance signals advising on investigations and police conduct.

First, the Court reiterated that a non-bailable warrant issued by the High Court must be personally executed by the receiving officer. Ensuring mere presence of the person named in the NBW is not sufficient, and the officer must arrest and produce the individual before the High Court, since district courts can grant bail on High Court NBWs.

Second, the High Court treated the misbehaviour by the SSP’s PRO with an AGA who was merely communicating the Court’s order as contempt. The PRO was taken into court custody till 5 pm, and the DGP, U.P. has been directed to issue a circular that any such misbehaviour with State Law Officers will be dealt with strictly.

Also read Can Arbitration Clauses Specify Two Places Without Creating Ambiguity on the Juridical Seat? Supreme Court Clarifies

Briefly, the applicant, Sachin Yadav, filed a bail application before the Allahabad High Court, seeking release during trial in a criminal case registered at Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh, under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act.

The FIR alleged that after the marriage of the applicant with the victim was fixed, the applicant remained in contact with her and during this period allegedly prepared obscene videos and photographs of the victim. He then allegedly started blackmailing her, and when she refused to pay Rs. 2 lacs, the obscene videos and photographs were uploaded on a fake Facebook ID in the name of one Rakesh Yadav. The applicant contended that the Facebook ID of Rakesh Yadav did not belong to him, that he had been falsely implicated, that he had no criminal history, and that he had been languishing in jail since April 01, 2025.

Also read Delhi High Court Rejects ‘First Come, First Served’ Policy for Ramleela Ground Allotment, Directs Annual Guidelines

A Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal refused bail where the Cyber Cell report showed that the applicant had created the fake Facebook ID in the name of Rakesh Yadav on Sep 08, 2024, and had uploaded the obscene video and photographs of the victim through that ID, treating this as sufficient ground to deny bail at that stage. The Court clarified the correct legal position that whenever a police officer receives a non-bailable warrant issued by the High Court, he must personally ensure the arrest of the person and produce him before the High Court, since in such NBWs the district court can grant bail. Ensuring mere presence is not enough.

As the SSP, Azamgarh tendered an apology for not personally executing the NBW against the Investigating Officer, after considering his unblemished record and the prompt remedial steps taken, the High Court closed the matter without further order, while recording an expectation of greater care in future. The Court noted that PRO Rajesh Kumar Singh had misbehaved with Anurag Pandey, AGA, while the latter was trying to communicate the Court’s order over mobile phone, and instead of passing stricture, directed that the PRO be taken into custody till 5 pm and then released.

The High Court also directed the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, to issue a circular to all police officers that misbehaviour with any State Law Officer of the High Court while communicating compliance of Court orders will be treated as contempt and dealt with strictly in accordance with law.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicants: Man Bahadur Singh, Saurabh Kumar, Shweta Nishad

Counsel for Opposite Parties: Patanjali Mishra, Government Advocate along with Pankaj Saxena, A.G.A.

PDF Icon

Sachin Yadav vs State of U.P.

Preview PDF