Rajiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36458

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1147 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Ajay Madhavan,Arvind Kumar,Pramod Kumar Khare,Prashant Shekhar,Ramraj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Rawat, holding brief of Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.373 of 2024, under Sections 351(3) of BNS and 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religious Act, 2021, registered at P.S.-Kotwali Dehat, District -Sultanpur.

¶8

3. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 15.09.2024 when the informant allegedly saw the applicant along with co-accused providing inducement and allurement for the purposes of religious conversion.

¶9

4. It is submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the allegations levelled against

¶10

him only on account of previous enmity and that none of the allegations have ever substantiated. It is submitted that applicant without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 15.09.2024. He further submits that identically situated co-accused, Subhash @ Subhash Kumar has already been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4892 of 2025 and he is seeking the parity to the same. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but admits that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶12

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that FIR has been lodged only with regard to observing the applicant providing allurement for the purposes of religious conversion. There is no specific allegation that informant was ever provided any such allurement or inducement. The allegation therefore would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. The applicant without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 15.09.2024. Identically situated co-accused, Subhash @ Subhash Kumar has already been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4892 of 2025.

¶13

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel

¶14

of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶15

8. Let the applicant, Rajiv Kumar involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.;

¶19

and

¶20

(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

9. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶23

[Shree Prakash Singh, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 25.6.2025 cks/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arti @ Munni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Hom Deptt. Lko .

Banwari Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Altaf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anoop Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Karan Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others