Allahabad High Court

IMRANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, holding that the allegations did not warrant pre‑emptive detention.

Summary

The applicant, Imran, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case alleging forced conversion of a woman under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. He claimed he was falsely implicated, asserting that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. did not name him and that the primary accused, his brother Kalam Ali, had already been granted bail. The State opposed the bail but did not contest the applicant’s clean criminal record. The court examined the victim’s statement, noted the absence of the applicant’s name, and considered his lack of prior convictions. Concluding that the circumstances did not justify pre‑emptive detention, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC given the allegations of forced conversion.
Whether the victim’s statement, which does not name the applicant, negates the basis for his arrest.
Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record influences the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 183, 61(2), 87
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act — s. 3, 5(3)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
forced conversion
Section 482 CrPC
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion
bail conditions
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9243 of 2026

Imran
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.138 of 2026 under Section 87/61(2) of B.N.S.
and Section 3/5(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion, Police Station Sajeti, District-Kanpur Nagar,
with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant
apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant and the other
accused are said to have forcibly converted the victim to another religion,
which is absolutely false. The victim had eloped with the co-accused
Kalam Ali, who is the brother of the applicant. Relying on the statement
of the victim under Section 183 BNSS, Learned counsel for the applicant
states that the victim has not named the applicant in her statement. The
further submission is that Kalam Ali, the primary accused, has been
granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28307 of
2026. The applicant has no criminal history.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute
the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
NABAIL No. 9243 of 2026
2

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.

6. A perusal of the statement under Section 183 BNSS of the victim
indicates that she and co-accused Kalam Ali appeared to know each other
and were in a relationship. The victim at the relevant point of time was
stated to be two months pregnant. She has not taken the name of the
applicant in her statement under Section 183 BNSS. Co-accused Kalam
Ali, against whom there are allegations, has been granted bail by this
Court. The applicant has no criminal history.

7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant-Imran, he shall be released
forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a
personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer
of the police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;

ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer;

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
NABAIL No. 9243 of 2026
3

11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 23, 2026
A. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…