CRLA/3325/2025 of SHARUF Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 2 OTHERS on 10 December 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3325 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned AG.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court, the same is taken on record. As per the office report dated 24.11.2025 notice has already been served personally upon the opposite party No. 2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf, it appears that she is not interested to file any counter affidavit. Sri Rahul Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.3, but none is present on her behalf even in the revised call. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge/S.C./S.T. Act, District Faizabad in Bail Application No. 2849 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 739 of 2025, under Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 3/5 (3) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Eshan Garg, Prachi Arya Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rahul Srivastava, Shiv Shankar Verma Sharuf .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the First Information Report, on 26.07.2025 at about 8:00 p.m., the appellant-accused along with other co-accused allegedly took away the informant’s daughter after enticing her, and when the informant went to the house of the appellant- accused to inquire about her daughter’s whereabouts, he hurled filthy abuses at her. On 28.07.2025, some persons informed the complainant that her daughter/victim had been seen in the company of some individuals. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. is highly delayed. The appellant is not named in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the informant, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., did not disclose any specific role of the appellant-accused. It is next submitted that the father of the victim did not make any allegation against the appellant-accused regarding taking away or enticing his daughter. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits The statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS shows that she voluntarily left her parental home because her parents were pressurizing her to marry an elderly person and had also beaten her. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, clearly stated that she voluntarily left her parental house. She had fallen in love with the appellant-accused and both of them wanted to marry each other, and for this reason, the parents of the victim lodged a false F.I.R. There is no independent witness mentioned in the F.I.R., though the alleged incident is said to have occurred in a crowded area. He next submits that the appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 15.08.2025. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the appellant is the main culprit who enticed the victim and took her away for the purpose of converting her religion. The appellant- accused is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, It transpires that the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 26.07.2025, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged three days later, on 29.07.2025. The appellant-accused is not named in the F.I.R., and there is no public witness to the alleged incident. It is also not averred in the F.I.R. that the appellant-accused had attempted to convert the religion of the victim. During the course of investigation, the statements of the informant and her husband were recorded, wherein they did not specifically state that the appellant-accused played any role with respect to conversion of the victim's religion. As per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the Magistrate, she stated that she is aged about 20 years and that she voluntarily left her parental house because her parents were pressurizing her to marry an elderly person and had also beaten her; the appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 15.08.2025 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge/S.C./S.T. Act, District Faizabad in Bail Application No. 2849 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 739 of 2025, under Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 3/5 (3) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Sharuf be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions-

(1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

(v) The appellant 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. December 10, 2025 Arvind

(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench