AGAs Are Officers Of The Court, Misbehaviour By Police Officers Amounts To Contempt: Allahabad High Court Directs DGP Circular

"Learned AGAs are officers of the Court. 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 and misbehaving with them by any officer may be the top-most officer of the State will amount to contempt," Allahabad High Court.

Allahabad High Court has held that Additional Government Advocates (AGAs) represent the court as its officers, and any misconduct or disrespect displayed towards them by administrative or police personnel amounts to criminal contempt of court. A single-judge bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this significant ruling while dealing with an incident where the Public Relations Officer (PRO) to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Azamgarh, misbehaved over a telephone call with an AGA who was communicating judicial directions.

The applicant, Sachin Yadav, approached the High Court seeking regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 373 of 2024, registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act at Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh. The prosecution alleged that after the applicant's marriage was fixed with the victim, he captured obscene photographs and videos, extorted money, and subsequently published the intimate media online using a fake social media profile. During earlier hearings, the High Court had issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the Investigating Officer, requiring compliance through the state law officers, which triggered the controversy regarding the execution of warrants and communication between the police administration and court counsel.

The primary question before the court was whether misbehaviour by a police official towards a State Law Officer conveying court orders constitutes contempt of court. The bench was also called upon to determine the strict legal duties of police officers executing non-bailable warrants issued by the High Court, as well as the applicant’s entitlement to bail under Section 64(1) BNS and the Information Technology Act.

State Law Officers Act As Officers Of The Court

Emphasising the constitutional and institutional stature of government advocates, the court observed that State Law Officers discharge sovereign duties in ensuring the administration of justice. The bench stressed that when an advocate representing the State conveys judicial directions to administrative officials, they act directly in aid of the court's authority.

The bench unequivocally ruled that disrespect towards judicial counsel strikes at the dignity of the administration of justice and will not be tolerated regardless of the administrative hierarchy of the offending officer.

"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 and misbehaving with them by any officer may be the top-most officer of the State will amount to contempt."

Custody Ordered For Delinquent Police Personnel

Taking serious cognisance of the conduct of the PRO to the SSP, Azamgarh, who had misbehaved over the phone with learned AGA Anurag Pandey, the bench refused to overlook the lapse. While the SSP had removed the official from the post and issued a show-cause notice, the court deemed it necessary to administer judicial custody on the spot.

Instead of framing formal contempt charges, the court ordered that the delinquent police officer be immediately taken into custody and detained inside the courtroom until the rising of the court at 5:00 PM.

DGP Directed To Issue State-Wide Circular

To prevent recurring incidents of bureaucratic and police arrogance towards court counsel, the High Court issued an omnibus direction to the highest police authority in Uttar Pradesh.

The bench directed the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, to issue a comprehensive circular instructing all police personnel that State Law Officers must be treated with appropriate institutional respect, warning that future infractions would be dealt with strictly under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Strict Procedure For Executing High Court Non-Bailable Warrants

Addressing the procedural default by the police machinery in executing a non-bailable warrant issued against the Investigating Officer, the court clarified the mandatory duty cast upon executing officers. The bench observed that merely forwarding court notices or attempting to secure an officer’s routine presence is a dereliction of statutory duty.

The court noted that when an NBW is issued directly by the High Court, the executing officer must personally effect the arrest and produce the individual before the High Court itself.

"The correct legal position is 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."

Cyber Forensic Evidence Bars Bail In Intimate Media Upload Case

Turning to the merits of the bail plea, the court scrutinized the evidentiary record concerning the allegations under Section 64(1) BNS and cyber offences. The applicant contended that the Facebook profile under the name of 'Rakesh Yadav' did not belong to him and argued that he had been falsely implicated without any criminal antecedents.

Rejecting the applicant's defence, the court found substantial corroboration in the investigation and forensic analysis. The bench noted that the Cyber Cell report conclusively demonstrated that the applicant had generated the fake Facebook profile on September 8, 2024, specifically to disseminate the victim's intimate photographs and videos after extorting money.

Given the gravity of the offences and the direct electronic trail implicating the applicant, the court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed the bail application of the accused under Section 64(1) BNS and the IT Act, holding that prima facie cyber forensic evidence confirmed the deliberate circulation of obscene media. Concurrently, the court established a precedent upholding the institutional standing of State Law Officers, directing the State DGP to enforce strict compliance across all police ranks.

Date of Decision: October 12, 2026