HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8266 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar, holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Uma Shanker Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 696 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) B.N.S. and Section 3, 5(1) of UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants under Section 5(1) of the UP Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. It is also submitted that the applicants has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is a tenancy dispute between the applicants and the first informant. It is also submitted that no one has received any injury in the alleged incident. It is also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It is lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Fahad Khan And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per first information report, the allegation against the applicants is that they along with other co-accused persons forcibly pulled down the wall of the house of the informant and when he objected to, then they asked them to adopt muslim religion to which the informant side refused. Then the applicants and other co-accused persons started using abusive language and threatened the informant side. The applicants have no criminal history. A tenancy dispute between the applicants and the first informant is also said to be existing since long. 7. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Fahad Khan and Mohsin involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would NABAIL No. 8266 of 2025 2 appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) The applicants 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants herein. October 10, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8266 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad