Mohd Gufran Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105560

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20608 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd Gufran Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Farhan Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Farhan Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Mohd. Gufran Ahmad, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.55 of 2025, under Section 64, 61(2), 304(2), 318(4) B.N.S. and Section 3, 5(1) U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, P.S. Ubhaon, District Ballia.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 7.3.2025 by the victim against the applicant and two other persons alleging therein that she used to use Facebook and Instagram Account on which she came in contact with a boy named Jai Prakash and started chatting with him. Jai Prakash used to come to her house and school and used to follow her. He once cut his hand by a blade and wrote her name and stated that he is in love with her. She on the said pretext got mislead and decided to marry him on which on 2.3.2025 he took her to a temple where they solemnized marriage. Later on he took her to a room where he established physical relationship with her and made a video of it. He then told her that he is not Hindu and is a Muslim and his name is Mohd. Gurfan Ahmad, S/o Mohd. Iliyas. He then told her to convert her religion to Islam or else he would make her video and photographs viral on internet. The two co-accused had made a plan that after nikah, they would take the girl to Mumbai and sell her. When she came to know about the said conspiracy, she somehow saved herself. They snatched her A.T.M, Pendrive and Rs.10,000/-. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the

¶11

victim is aged about 22 years and a major woman. The victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS has given a different date of marriage and thus the factum of marriage is false. While placing C.D.R. of the victim, it is submitted that the victim and the applicant were on train on the said date and time and thus entire prosecution story is false. The applicant is doing private job as welder in Mumbai, para 22 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application has been placed before the Court. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 23 of the affidavit and is in jail since 8.3.2025.

¶12

Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the mobile of the applicant was recovered in which the objectionable contents were found. I.D of Instagram of the applicant has also been recovered and objectionable photographs of the victim have been recovered. The applicant had misrepresented himself of being a different religion and having physical relationship disclosing his religion as such bail application of the applicant be rejected.

¶13

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant had concealed his religion and has misrepresented the victim. On that pretext she got mislead and entered into physical relationship after which the applicant disclosed his actual religion and then was forcing her to convert her religion. The Instagram I.D. and mobile phone of the applicant were recovered in which objectionable photographs and contents of the victim were found.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Gufran Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Gufran Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases