Allahabad High Court grants pre-arrest bail to student booked for forcing classmate to wear burqa, conversion

Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, make it illegal to convert religions via force, fraud, allurement, or marriage. Section 3 prohibits such conversions, while Section 5(1) punishes violations with 3–10 years in prison and a fine (minimum Rs 50,000).

Justice Avnish Saxena of the Allahabad High Court clarified that the observations made in the order would not affect the merits of the trial. (Image enhanced using AI)

Allegations in FIR

• According to the prosecution, the FIR was lodged on January 22 by the brother of the alleged victim, a minor girl.
• The complaint named five persons and alleged that the victim had been “brainwashed” and pressured to convert her religion.
• It was further alleged that she had once been forcibly made to wear a burqa and was continuously subjected to pressure for religious conversion.
• The incident was stated to have occurred on December 20, 2025.
• Advocate Jaideep Pandey, counsel for the applicant, argued that the allegations were false and that the applicant was merely a co-student of the victim.
• The counsel also submitted that the principal allegations were directed against another accused girl, who was already granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench of the high court.
• He said that the applicant had no criminal history and was ready to cooperate in the investigation.

Prosecution opposes bail

Opposing the plea, Government Advocate Chandra Vijai Singh, and counsel for the informant, advocate Shailendra Pratap Singh, informed Allahabad High Court that no complaint or prior allegation suggested that the applicant had attempted to influence any other student for religious conversion.

The state and counsel for the informant relied upon the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS.

They argued before the Allahabad High Court that the statements clearly indicated that the victim had been pressured to change her religion and had been psychologically influenced by the accused persons.

The prosecution also attempted to explain the delay in lodging the FIR by contending that the victim remained under the influence of the accused and that the informant became aware of the alleged “sinister design” only after sustained efforts.

It was argued that the FIR had been lodged with ulterior motives.

Court refers to Supreme Court precedents

While deciding the plea, the Allahabad High Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments governing anticipatory bail, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980), Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011), and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020).

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that factors such as the nature and gravity of accusations, criminal antecedents, possibility of false implication, need for custodial interrogation, and likelihood of the accused cooperating with the investigation must be considered while adjudicating anticipatory bail applications.

Bail conditions

• Allowing the plea, the Allahabad High Court directed the applicant to appear before the investigating officer or trial court within 30 days and furnish a personal bond of Rs 25,000 along with two sureties of the like amount.
• The court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant shall not threaten or influence witnesses, shall cooperate with the trial proceedings, and shall remain present before the trial court on crucial dates such as framing of charges and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS.
• The Allahabad High Court further clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to the adjudication of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.
• It also issued directions aimed at ensuring expeditious proceedings if a charge sheet is filed in the matter.