Uday Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39886

Court No. - 30

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6463 of 2025

Applicant :- Uday Raj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Devashish Bhatt,Munish Kumar Chandra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.398 of 2024, under Section 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya.

¶9

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 28.07.2024 at about 10.00 A.M. when the applicant was a witness to attempt made by them and the co-accused for attempting religious conversion by making various inducements.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that even from a bare perusal of FIR, there is no allegation against the applicant which would attract the section imputed against him. He also submits that co-accused Akash and Abhishek have already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12078 of 2024 and other co-accused, namely-Chinta Devi, Vimla Devi and Raghuveer have also been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.11140 of 2024, 1553 of 2025 and 11971 of 2024. It is submitted that applicant in fact has not been indicated as having any role in the attempted religious conversion. he is under incarceration since 28.07.2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not

¶12

dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

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 :-

¶14

"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."

¶15

"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."

¶16

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that no active role has been assigned to applicant in the FIR, co-accused having similar role already been enlarged on bail by this Court as indicated herein above. Applicant is under incarceration since 28.07.2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶17

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶18

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let applicant- Uday Raj involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of

¶21

this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶22

(ii) The applicant 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 (Section 269 of B.N.S., 2023).

¶23

(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. (Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023) is issued and the applicants fail 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 (Section 209 of B.N.S., 2023).

¶24

(iv) The applicants 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. (Section 351 of B.N.S.S, 2023). 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 in accordance with law.

¶25

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 -Piyush-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Uday Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 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

Abhishek Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Baliram @ Balram Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishnakant Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Uday Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suman Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 11 Others