Allahabad HC Rejects Bail in POCSO and Cyberstalking Case, Directs Mental Examination of Accused

Allahabad: The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has rejected the bail application of a man accused of blackmailing a minor victim with obscene photographs and videos obtained by allegedly hacking her mobile phone, while directing the Chief Medical Officer, Kaushambi, to conduct a mental examination of the accused before the trial court.

The Case

The bail application was filed in connection with Case Crime No. 41 of 2026, registered at Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi, invoking Sections 64(1), 74, 351(2), 352 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.

According to the prosecution's case, the victim had earlier lodged a separate FIR, Case Crime No. 430 of 2025, on December 13, 2025, alleging that the applicant had obtained her obscene photographs by hacking her mobile phone and subsequently used them to blackmail her, including through threats issued over social media. The applicant was arrested in connection with that FIR and later released on bail. The victim alleged that after his release, the applicant resumed threatening and blackmailing her, sent obscene messages, and demanded Rs 5,00,000 in exchange for deleting her obscene photographs and video, leading to the registration of the present FIR. The victim's account was recorded in her statement under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, in which she stated that she had been in a relationship with the applicant before the alleged blackmail began.

Arguments of the Parties

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim had been in a relationship with the applicant, and that the FIR was falsely lodged after he refused to marry her. It was further submitted that the applicant had explained his one prior criminal case, that a chargesheet had already been filed, and that custodial interrogation was therefore no longer required. Counsel urged that the applicant, who has been in custody since January 25, 2026, would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial.

The Additional Government Advocate, along with counsel for the first informant, opposed the bail plea, submitting that the investigation had recovered messages sent by the applicant to the victim and her relatives, obscene photographs of the victim posted on social media, and letters written by the applicant, all of which had been placed before the Court. It was submitted that these materials, including messages containing filthy language, established a continuing pattern of threats and blackmail aimed at extracting a large sum of money from the victim in exchange for deleting the obscene content.

The Court's Findings

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, on perusing the record, held that even if the applicant had been in a relationship with the victim, his subsequent conduct in blackmailing her using obscene photographs and video, and in sending filthy and obscene messages that were also posted on social media, weighed against the grant of bail. Considering the language and nature of the messages and the content posted online, the Court held that it was not inclined to release the applicant on bail, and accordingly rejected the application.

Separately, on examining the messages and social media posts sent by the applicant, the Court recorded a prima facie observation that the applicant did not appear to be a person of sound mind. It accordingly directed the Chief Medical Officer, Kaushambi, to conduct his mental examination and place the report on the record of the case before the concerned district court. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the Chief Medical Officer for compliance.

Case Details

Case: Rahul Kumar Saroj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18318 of 2026
Statutes Invoked: Sections 64(1), 74, 351(2), 352, 333 BNS; Sections 3/4 POCSO Act; Section 66E IT Act
Counsel: Ajay Pandey for the Applicant; Roshan Kumar Singh, A.G.A., for the State; Surya Mani Pandey for the First Informant
Date of Order: July 17, 2026
Outcome: Bail application rejected; CMO Kaushambi directed to conduct mental examination of the applicant