Roshan Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19489

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13150 of 2024

Applicant :- Roshan Nishad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh and Ms. Shraddha Tripathi learned counsel for applicants whose power filed today is taken on record and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0491 of 2024 under Section 3, 5(1) U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 & Section & 351(3) of B.N.S. P.S.Purakalandar, District Ayodhya.

¶8

As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 3.11.2024 at about 4.00 P.M. when informant reached a particular place and found applicant along with co-accused involved in exhortation of people to change their religion.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. She has also adverted to statement of alleged victim to submit that there is no specific allegations levelled against applicant with regard to charges indicated in F.I.R. It is also submitted that general allegations have been levelled against all the persons including those who were members of assembly. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 04.11.2024 without any direct evidence against him and without any previous criminal history.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that during investigation, a mobile phone was recovered from applicant indicating fact that he had created a Whatsapp Group for purposes of exhorting people to convert to his religion.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears from a perusal of F.I.R. as well as statement of alleged victim that no specific allegation has been levelled against applicant who is said to be only a member of assembly in which also only conversation was being held with regard to exhortation of people to convert. The aspect of recovery of Whatsapp chats will be subject matter of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 04.11.2024 without any previous criminal history. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶15

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let applicants Roshan Nishad and Anugrah Jaikumar alias Jai Kumar, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and

¶18

pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(ii) The applicants 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/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 prabhat

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Roshan Nishad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Nishad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Yawar Ali Khan Nanhan Zariwala Mohammed Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rinku Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Roshan Nishad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Zakir Hussain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko