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

As per office report dated 12.04.2026, notice has been served to Respondent No.2 in person and Respondent No.3 through her brother but today when the case is taken up neither any counsel is present on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 nor any Vakakatnama has been filed.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶12

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.150 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(2)m BNS (Sections 363 and 376(2) IPC) and Section 5/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station - Jayas, District - Amethi, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that initially the F.I.R. dated 21/08/2025 has been lodged under Section 137(2) BNS against unknown person alleging therein that 17 years old sister of the informant left the house at around 12.00 noon and since then she had not come back. After the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, Sections 64(2)m BNS and Section 5/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 have been added.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no allegation that the applicant has enticed or eloped with the sister of the informant.

¶15

It is further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that she is in love with the applicant and she wants to live with him. They have solemnized the marriage and

¶16

BAIL No. 2527 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

in Kerala before Maulana she has accepted the Muslim Religion. She is pregnant.

¶19

It is further submitted that the victim was 17 years of age at the time of alleged incident and the relationship between the victim and the applicant was consensual.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history, he has falsely been implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 29.10.2025.

¶21

In support of her submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadashiv Ramarao Hadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2006) 10 SCC, Page 92 and the judgment dated 16.07.2025 passed in the case of Birka Shiva vs. State of Telangana passed in Criminal Appeal.... 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl. ) No.1445/2025.

¶22

On the other hand learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions received has vehemently opposed the bail prayer and has submitted that the offence under 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 is made out against the applicant.

¶23

In reply thereto, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 is not attracted in the case of the applicant and Section 5 (1) is the punishment for contravention of provision of Section 3 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 in which the maximum punishment is five years and fine.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it appears from the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS that she is in love with the applicant and they have solemnized the marriage and the victim wants to live with applicant. She had gone with the applicant with her own sweet will and there is no allegation against the applicant for outraging her modesty by the applicant. The relationship, prima facie, appears consensual and as per judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anash Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.7576 of 2025 dated 17.07.2025 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted interim protection to the applicant and the SLP was allowed while holding that there was a consensual relationship between the parties. As far as Section 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 is concerned, on plain reading of explanation to Section 3(1), wherein, it has been provided that for the purpose of conversion by solemnization of marriage or relationship in the

¶25

BAIL No. 2527 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

nature of marriage on account of factors enumerated in this sub-section shall be deemed included. The factors enumerated are the use or practice of misrepresentation, force, uninfluenced, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means and there is no allegation of any of the factors enumerated in Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Hence, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed .

¶29

Let the applicant Taslim be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶31

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶32

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶33

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶34

(v) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶35

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶36

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶37

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶38

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶39

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is

¶40

BAIL No. 2527 of 2026

¶41

4

¶42

clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶43

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶44

May 21, 2026

¶45

S. Kumar

¶46

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

Taslim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taslim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Shyam Pyare @ Shyam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Jay Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Pankaj Kumar Pathak and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Sohan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

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

Sanjay Kumar Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.