Sajjad Husain LawSajjad Husain Law Associates

Lucknow: Allahabad High Court at Lucknow yesterday granted interim protection to an Advocate accused in a case registered in District Lucknow under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, after expressing concern over serious deficiencies in the police investigation.

A Bench of Justice Rajiv Singh Observed “The case diary also reveals that only a vague exercise has been done by the Investigating Officer. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory interim anticipatory bail”

The case pertains to allegations of sexual exploitation, extortion, and coercion for religious conversion arising out of a personal relationship between two junior advocates.According to the prosecution, the informant, a 27-year-old practicing lawyer, alleged that she was in a consensual relationship with the applicant, who was also working as a junior advocate. It was alleged that physical relations were established on the promise of marriage and that intimate photographs and videos were recorded, which were subsequently used to coerce her into further relations and monetary payments.The FIR also refers to alleged financial transactions involving the proposed sale of a plot, threats to circulate intimate material, and pressure upon the informant for marriage and religious conversion.

The applicant argued that the FIR lacked specific details regarding the date, time, and place of the alleged incidents, and that despite allegations of continuous telephonic harassment since June 2024, no call detail records were collected during investigation.Reliance was placed on judgments of the Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Wajid Vs. State of UP (Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023) & Samadhan s/o Sitaram Manmothe Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2025), to submit that the mere breakdown of a consensual relationship cannot automatically give rise to criminal prosecution in the absence of clear and cogent material.Upon perusal of the case diary placed by the State, the High Court recorded adverse observations regarding the investigation, noting that several case diary entries were prepared in a mechanical and stereotyped manner, search proceedings lacked particulars of places visited or persons examined, despite allegations of repeated phone calls, technical evidence such as call records was not collected, the informant declined medico-legal examination, and no specific date or location of the alleged incident was recorded & proceedings under the relevant provisions of BNSS were initiated without adequate investigative foundation.

The Court observed that the investigation appeared to be sketchy and perfunctory, falling short of the standards required in cases involving serious criminal allegations.Considering the overall circumstances, the Court held that custodial arrest was not warranted at this stage and granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to standard conditions including cooperation with investigation, non-tampering with evidence or witnesses, and restriction on travel outside India.

The matter is fixed for hearing on 29.01.2026.Advocate Ripu Daman Shahi argued for the applicant and A.G.A. represented the State.Case

Title: Ateequl Rahman Vs State Of U.P. & Others