Shaheen Bano @ Shanno Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

2. The present anticipatory bail application is filed by the applicant involved in Case Crime No.0209 of 2024, under Sections 376D, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3, 5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Religious Conversion Act, Police Station - Maanpur, District - Sitapur.

¶12

3. On 27.1.2025, following order was passed :-

¶13

1. Heard Sri Wasim Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶14

2. Sri Wasim Ahmad has requested that he may be permitted to implead the complainant with full details as opposite party No.2 in the array of opposite parties, during the course of day.

¶15

3. On the aforesaid request, Sri Wasim Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead the complainant with full details as opposite party No.2 in the array of opposite parties, during the course of day.

¶16

4. Issue notice to opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date, for which, necessary steps be taken within a week.

¶17

5. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶18

6. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the present applicant (Shaheen Bano @ Shanno) apprehending her arrest in FIR/ Case Crime

¶19

NABAIL No. 81 of 2025

¶20

2

¶21

No.0209 of 2024, under Sections 376-D, 323 & 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 5 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Religious Conversion Act, Police StationMaanpur, District-Sitapur.

¶22

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

¶23

8. It has been informed at the Bar that after rejection of her anticipatory bail application on 02.01.2025 the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued.

¶24

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that at the time of approaching the competent court by filing anticipatory bail application, there was no proclamation against the present applicant and on account of some delay in approaching this Court after getting the rejection order from the learned Session Court, the proclamation has been issued.

¶25

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is a lady and no serious allegation has been levelled against her except one allegation that she had forced her to read 'Kalma' inasmuch as she could have not committed offence under Section 376-D I.P.C.

¶26

11. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in the F.I.R. which was lodged on 30.09.2024 for the alleged incident dated 12.04.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay as such F.I.R. was filed pursuant to the order being passed on the application filed under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S., no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been levelled against the present applicant as she is not accused in that F.I.R. The aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged only against the main accused, Maruf @ Samir Shukla.

¶27

12. Sri Wasim Ahmad has stated that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. She is having permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk. Investigation is going on and if she is granted an interim anticipatory bail, she will cooperate in the investigation. Besides, she being a lady, her liberty may be protected in the light of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the case in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶28

13. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the present applicant by making request that he may be given some reasonable time to file the counter affidavit he will explain

¶29

NABAIL No. 81 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

each and every thing.

¶32

14. Matter requires consideration.

¶33

15. Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

¶34

16. List this case in the week commencing 03.03.2025.

¶35

17. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant (Shaheen Bano @ Shanno) shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid crime case on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/ court concerned on the following conditions:-

¶36

(i) that the present applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 01.02.2025 at 11:00 a.m. sharp to cooperate in the investigation and shall further appear to cooperate in the investigation till completion of investigation and filing of the police report, failing which, this interim protection may be withdrawn on the next date;

¶37

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶38

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;

¶39

(iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial;

¶40

(v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶41

(vi) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶42

18. It is made clear that the main accused, Maruf @ Samir Shukla, may not seek parity with the present applicant, as she is not named in the impugned F.I.R.

¶43

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that charge sheet No.227A/2024 dated 25.4.2025 under Section 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Religious Conversion Act has already been submitted against the applicant. He also submits that applicant never misused

¶44

NABAIL No. 81 of 2025

¶45

4

¶46

the liberty of interim bail and is ready to cooperate in the trial. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for protection of this Court under the provisions of anticipatory bail and the present bail application may be allowed.

¶47

5. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant, but does not dispute the fact that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.1.2025 and never misused the liberty of interim bail.

¶48

6. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the F.I.R., bail application as well as earlier order passed by this Court dated 27.1.2025, it is evident that applicant was on interim bail during the course of investigation and she never misused the liberty of the same, accordingly, the present application for anticipatory bail is allowed in terms of order dated 27.1.2025.

¶49

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶50

October 6, 2025

¶51

GauraV/-

¶52

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shaheen Bano @ Shanno v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheen Bano @ Shanno v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Shahbaz Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohammad Kashif Kamal Khan @ Kashif Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satai Prajapati and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Ram Pal Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education, U.P. Lucknow and 6 Others

Naval Kishor and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others

Shaheen Bano @ Shanno vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.