HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9617 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 351 of 2026, under Sections 3,5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station- Jiyanpur, District -Azamgarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant professes the Hindu religion and has never abetted or in any manner enticed any other person to convert to Christianity. The allegations are of the applicant and the other accused extolling the virtues of Christianity while deprecating the Hindu religion and were trying to induce poor people into converting to Christianity by promising them money and other temporal and divine benefits. Learned counsel has further contended that many other allegations have been made and at the relevant point of time, i.e. on 16.08.2026, it has been stated that in the presence of 70 to 80 men and women, the applicant and the other accused were preaching Christianity and were deprecating the Hindu religion. Learned counsel has further contended that as stated above, the applicant is a practicing Hindu, never indulged in any such occurrence as has been mentioned in the FIR. Applicant is a resident of District Mau and had gone to a relative's house in District Azamgarh on a social call. 4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has contended that the applicant and the other accused by promising money and other benefits were enticing poor citizens to convert to Christianity. Such an act is punishable under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Awadhesh Kumar, Sanju Lata Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sonu Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Conversion of Religion Act. The crime is heinous in nature and the applicant may be required for custodial interrogation. He may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 6. The applicant is not reported to have any criminal antecedents. He claims to be a practicing Hindu. The allegations that have been made against the applicant, who is a resident of District Mau, by the informant who claims to be a resident of District Azamgarh without any prior contact, appears to be quite suspicious. The other accused are the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the applicant. In the opinion of the Court, false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. 7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to enlarge the 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 -Sonu Kumar, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount 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. 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. September 30, 2026 Sartaj NABAIL No. 9617 of 2026 2 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad