The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of forcing a woman into a physical relationship and religious conversion under the threat of releasing her private videos. Justice Samit Gopal allowed the bail application, primarily observing that the complainant is a 32-year-old major, the relationship between the parties had soured over time, and the investigation failed to recover any incriminating material.
The applicant, Adil Abbas, sought bail in connection with Case Crime No. 0642 of 2025, where he was charged under Sections 69, 308(2), 352, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 3/5 of The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.
Factual Background
The case was initiated based on a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the victim on May 31, 2025. The complainant alleged that she and the applicant met at their office and became close. She claimed that during this time, the applicant captured her private photos and videos and used them to blackmail her. According to the FIR, he threatened to make the content viral, thereby coercing her into a physical relationship and extorting approximately Rs. Two Lakhs from her. The complainant also alleged that when discussions of marriage arose, the applicant began pressuring her to convert her religion.
Submissions Before the Court
Counsel for the applicant argued that his client was falsely implicated. It was submitted that the complainant, being a 32-year-old major, “was well aware of the consequences of the relationship between her and the applicant.” The defence contended that the relationship was initially consensual and had only soured later. The court was also informed that while the FIR named two other individuals, the police had exonerated them during the investigation and filed a charge-sheet only against the applicant. The defence emphasized that no incriminating photos or videos were recovered and that the applicant has no criminal history.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the first informant submitted that the applicant’s family members were “continuously tracing and tracking the victim and are extending threats to her” even while the applicant was in custody.
Court’s Reasoning and Order
After hearing the parties, the Court perused the record and noted several key points. In its order, the Court observed, “it is evident that the victim is a major woman aged about 32 years. The relationship between the applicant and the victim started from their office which subsequently became sour. No such photograph has been recovered during investigation.”
Concluding its analysis, the Court stated, “Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.”
The bail was granted on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and two sureties. To address the informant’s concerns, the Court imposed a specific condition that “The applicant or his family members shall in no manner tamper with, trace, track and harass the victim.” Any breach of the bail conditions would give the trial court the liberty to cancel the bail.
