Read Time: 07 minutes

The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of Single Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan granted bail to a woman, accused of abducting a 19-year-old girl and forcing her to convert her religion.

In the present case the, “bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant Chandbibi  for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 359 of 2020, under Sections 364, 366, 368,120-B IPC and Section 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020, Police Station Tambaur, District Sitapur, during trial.”

The provisions of the Ordinance, that have now taken force as an Act, declare unlawful religious conversion as a cognizable and non-bailable offence.

The learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that the she has falsely been implicated in the instant case and that she has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

He further submitted that, “the applicant was not named in the FIR and the victim was also not recovered from the custody of the applicant and it is shown that soon after the abduction the victim had appeared before the Police Station concerned along with her father and thereafter her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer, wherein also no allegation of any kind has been levelled against the applicant.”

“…that even if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value no involvement of the applicant is evident in any illegal activity and it has been categorically stated by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant had not done any illegal act.  However, it was on 26.2.2021 when the additional statement of the prosecutrix is shown to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein for the very first time the allegation pertaining to  the forceful conversion of religion pertaining to the prosecutrix has been levelled and the same could not be believed in the back ground of the fact that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded  under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has not levelled any imputation against the applicant and therefore the additional statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Investigating officer could not be believed.”

However, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) opposed the bail on the ground that,
“applicant on the ground that in the additional statement of the prosecutrix it has been specifically stated that amongst other persons who were instrumental in pressurizing the victim for changing her religion the instant applicant was one of them and therefore she could not escape criminal liability.”

Taking into account the factual matrix of the present case the bench observed that,

“…keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant I find substance only for the purpose of releasing the applicant on bail. The bail application is, thus, allowed.”

The bench further allowed the applicant to be released on bail furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

1. “The applicant would not leave the local limits of the police station, wherein she is permanently residing, without prior permission of the police station concerned.
2. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
3. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
4. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.”

Case title: Chandbibi v. State of U.P., 2021

Also read : Vishal Thakre & Ors. V. Union of India