Sketchy Investigation | Allahabad HC Grants Interim Bail to Advocate Accused Of Sexual Exploitation

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to a practising Advocate Ateequl Rahman accused of sexual exploitation on the false promise of marriage, blackmail using intimate videos, extortion, and pressuring the victim for religious conversion. The Court, however, strongly criticised the quality of the police investigation, observing that it was conducted in a “most sketchy manner” and lacked basic evidentiary support. The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh, while passing the order, held that in the absence of clear dates, corroborative medical evidence, call records, and specific investigative details, the applicant was entitled to interim protection from arrest. The anticipatory bail application arose out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2025, registered at Police Station Wazeerganj, Lucknow, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — including Sections 64(2)(M), 69, 61(2), and 308(2) — along with Sections 3/5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The FIR was lodged on 15 November 2025 by a 27-year-old woman, herself a practising lawyer, alleging that she was in a consensual romantic relationship with the applicant, who was working as a junior advocate in the same legal ecosystem. According to the FIR, the applicant allegedly established physical relations with the victim on the 8th floor of a multi-storeyed court building, promising marriage. It was claimed that when the victim later pressed for marriage, the applicant refused and allegedly revealed that he had secretly recorded videos and photographs of their intimate moments. The FIR further alleged that the applicant used these materials to coerce the victim into continued physical relations, threatened to make the videos public, and demanded that she comply with his instructions. It was also claimed that due to this harassment, the victim stopped attending court from June 2024. The victim further alleged that the applicant later demanded ₹5 lakh, and during her subsequent marriage in February 2025, continued to harass her and insist on meetings citing their “past relationship”. A significant part of the FIR revolved around a property transaction. The victim alleged that she sought the applicant’s help in selling a plot of land and agreed to pay him ₹5 lakh in exchange for returning the alleged intimate content. She claimed that while ₹10 lakh was paid by the buyer to the applicant, he neither transferred the amount to her nor returned the videos. The FIR alleged that the applicant later escalated his demands to ₹90 lakh, threatened to circulate the videos publicly, and pressured the victim to marry him and convert her religion, invoking the provisions of the Unlawful Conversion Act. The applicant denied the allegations and argued that the FIR did not mention any specific date or time of the alleged forcible sexual acts. The relationship was consensual, and criminal proceedings were initiated after the relationship ended. The victim had continued to communicate with him even after her marriage. The dispute was primarily financial in nature, arising from a failed property transaction. The investigation officer failed to collect call detail records, despite allegations of prolonged harassment. The victim refused medico-legal examination on multiple occasions. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments holding that breakdown of a consensual relationship does not automatically give rise to criminal liability in the absence of clear evidence of coercion or fraud. After examining the case diary produced by the State, the High Court made strong observations on the manner of investigation. The Court noted that the investigating officer failed to mention specific dates, times, or places of alleged incidents. Several case diary entries were stereotyped, lacking details of searches conducted or persons examined. Despite allegations of repeated phone harassment since June 2024, call records were never collected. The victim consistently declined internal medical examination, weakening corroboration. The site plan was prepared, but the date of the alleged incident remained undisclosed. Non-bailable warrants and proceedings declaring the applicant an absconder were initiated despite these investigative gaps. The Court also took note of the continued communication between the parties and the admitted financial dealings after the victim’s marriage. The court observed that the investigation revealed vague and unsubstantiated allegations, coupled with a lack of essential forensic and documentary evidence. The Court further noted that the offence was described as non-cognizable in nature. Arrest was being sought despite the absence of concrete material. The investigation reflected a “vague exercise” rather than a thorough fact-finding process. The High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant till the next date of hearing, directing that the applicant shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 in the event of arrest. He must cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer. He shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall not leave India without court permission. The court directed the applicant to appear before the investigating officer on December 29, 2025, and the matter has been listed for further hearing on January 29, 2026. Case Details Case Title: Ateequl Rahman Versus State of UP Case No.: CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2127 of 2025 Date: December 24, 2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Ripu Daman Shahi, Mahendra Pal Chauhan, Neeraj Tewari, Sumit Kumar Counsel For Respondent: G.A. Click Here To Read Order Read More: CBI Corruption Probe | New GST Registration After Contractor’s Death Became Basis for Clearing Rs. 37 Lakh Railway Payment: HC Refuses To Discharge

Sketchy Investigation | Allahabad HC Grants Interim Bail to Advocate Accused Of Sexual Exploitation

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 06 JULY, 2026

Non-AC Dining Areas in Same Hotel Complex Not Liable to Service Tax: CESTAT

Mere Attestation of Will Doesn’t Prove Its Validity if Suspicious Circumstances Exist: Supreme Court Restores Widow’s Property Rights

CBLR Violation Allegation Alone Can’t Attract Customs Act Penalty: CESTAT Quashes Rs. 10 Lakh Penalty on Customs Broker

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 06 JULY, 2026

Non-AC Dining Areas in Same Hotel Complex Not Liable to Service Tax: CESTAT

Mere Attestation of Will Doesn’t Prove Its Validity if Suspicious Circumstances Exist: Supreme Court Restores Widow’s Property Rights

About us

Company

Categories