Investigating Officer Kept in Court Custody for Failing to Collect Accused’s Phone, Rules Allahabad High Court

Investigating Officer Kept in Court Custody for Failing to Collect Accused’s Phone, Rules Allahabad High Court in Raj Raeen v. State of U.P.

Case: Raj Raeen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Date of Judgment: 24 October 2026
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Coram: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Proceedings: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36210 of 2026

Court Observation

“This Court expressed its displeasure on this negligence but taking a lenient view, refrains from passing any stricture against the above I.O. being lady officer but directs her to deposit Rs. 5,000/- in the Army Welfare Fund as a cost and to be careful in future.”

Summary

The Allahabad High Court has directed an investigating officer to remain in the custody of the court until 4 pm and to deposit Rs 5,000 as cost for failing to collect the accused’s mobile phone in a case that turned on digital material. The court described the lapse as negligence, and also as contemptuous of its earlier directions, but took a lenient view and passed no stricture against the officer.

The direction came while the court was hearing the accused’s bail application. The accused had been in custody since 4 July 2026, a charge-sheet had been filed, and the State did not dispute that he had no criminal history. The court noted contradictions in the statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the refusal of a medical examination, the nature of the offence and the evidence, as well as overcrowding in jails, and granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The court had earlier, in an order dated 17 July 2026, directed the Director General of Police to issue a circular requiring collection of the accused’s mobile phone in such cases, and the circular was issued on 25 July 2026. The investigating officer admitted before the court that she had mistakenly failed to collect the phone, and said she had since been trying to collect it during the pending investigation of a co-accused. The allegations against the accused remain untested, and the court expressed no view on his guilt.

Key Holdings

  • An investigating officer’s failure to collect the accused’s mobile phone in a case turning on digital material, in disregard of the court’s directions and the Director General of Police’s circular, is negligence that calls for a personal consequence.
  • Where digital material may prove or disprove an allegation, leaving the phone uncollected and unexamined leaves the allegation neither proved nor tested.
  • Contradictions in statements, the refusal of a medical examination, the nature of the offence and the evidence, a filed charge-sheet, the absence of criminal history, and jail overcrowding can together support the grant of bail without any finding on the merits.

Directions Issued

  • The investigating officer shall remain in the custody of the court until 4 pm and shall be released thereafter.
  • The investigating officer shall deposit Rs 5,000 in the Army Welfare Fund as cost, and the receipt confirming the deposit shall be submitted before the concerned Magistrate.
  • The investigating officer shall be careful in future.
  • The accused is granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, on conditions that he shall not threaten or induce witnesses or tamper with evidence, shall cooperate with the trial without seeking adjournments, and shall not indulge in criminal activity; breach may lead to cancellation of bail.

Background

The applicant sought bail in a case in which the prosecution case turned on digital material, but the accused’s mobile phone had not been collected for examination. The court had earlier directed that such phones be collected, and the Director General of Police issued a circular to that effect on 25 July 2026. When the investigating officer appeared before the court, she acknowledged that she had mistakenly failed to collect the phone. The court expressed its displeasure, imposed the cost and the period in court custody, and then dealt with the bail application on its own merits.

Related Articles

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.