Allahabad High Court
MAJIBULLAHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, finding that prima facie the case for bail was made out.
Summary
Majibullah applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No.131 of 2025) alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code, the POCSO Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religion Conversion Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, the FIR was filed five days after the alleged incident, and there was no evidence of forced conversion. He argued that the victim, an 18‑year‑old, had travelled with him voluntarily, indicating consent, and he had no prior criminal record. The opposing counsel opposed bail but did not refute the applicant’s submissions. The court, noting the FIR delay, the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the CrPC indicating consent, and the lack of contrary evidence, held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the victim's alleged consent justify granting bail to the accused.
- Whether the allegations under the POCSO Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religion Conversion Act warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 351(3), 64(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
- Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religion Conversion Act — s. 3/5(1)
Subjects
- bail
- FIR delay
- victim consent
- POCSO Act
- religion conversion law
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42136 of 2025
Majibullah
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chanchal Kumar Singh, Satish Chandra
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Smt. Ushma Mishra, Vipin
Kumar Dwivedi
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.73 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Zilajeet Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vipin Kumar Dwivedi, learned
counsel for the informant, Smt. Ushma Mishra, learned counsel for the High
Court Legal Service Committee and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.131 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 64(1), 351(3) BNS, 3/4 POCSO Act and 3/5(1) Uttar Pradesh
Prohibition of Unlawful Religion Conversion Act, Police Station Kathela
Samay Mata, District Siddharth Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
allegations are per se false. The FIR is delayed by about 5 days, and there is
no explanation for the said delay. There is nothing on record to suggest that
the applicant converted the victim to his own religion. The consent of the
victim can be drawn from the fact that she had travelled with the applicant
all the way to Mumbai through various modes of transportation. The victim
is 18 years old as per ossification test report. The applicant has no criminal
history and is in jail since 03.09.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the
trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 42136 of 2025
2
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have vehemently opposed the bail
application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for
the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in the institution of the FIR and the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, which indicates her consent, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Majibullah, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…