HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7956 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA as well as perused the entire record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Abdul Rahman to set-aside the impugned bail rejection order dated 06.08.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Court No.-2. District- Shahjahanpur in bail application No.1984 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 218 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352, 351(3) of BNS, Section 3/5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act and Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act and Section 3(2)v of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Roza, District- Shahjahanpur with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail during trial before the court below. 3. As per FIR version, the informant lodged the impugned FIR on 19.04.2025 stating therein that his daughter/victim, age 21, was attending coaching classes at Ajmul Shan's school in Katia Rajab. During this time, Abdul Rahman, the school owner's brother, sent a "Hi Hello" SMS to his daughter/victim's mobile number. Thereafter, the appellant began blackmailing and harassing her, threatening to make her photos and videos viral if she did not speak to him. When her daughter/victim refused, he made the videos viral and also sent them to her marriage venue, resulting in the breakdown of her marriage. It is also alleged that the appellant has also threatened to kill his family members. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The alleged incident is of the year 2018. The FIR is highly delayed about 7 years but there is no exploitation for the said delay. There is major contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS. Medical has been denied by the victim herself. He further submits that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail since 22.4.2025 having no criminal history. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim has also Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shakti Dubey, Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mukti Nath Dwivedi Abdul Rahman .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) supported the incident in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. He further submits that the accused-appellant is the victim's teacher and, taking advantage of his position, influenced her, forcibly entered into physical relations with her, took obscene photographs and videos of her against her will, blackmailed her on the basis of these photographs, and pressured her to convert to Islam. The offence committed by the accused-appellant is of a serious nature, hence, the appellant is not entitled for bail and the present bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. September 26, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 7956 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad