Mohammad Rafique @ Laddan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and Section 3/5(1) of UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, Police Station Sonauli, District Maharajganj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the abovementioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants. It is submitted that present FIR has been lodged after a delay of nine years. It is further submitted that the first informant got married to co-accused Shaban and the applicants have been assigned the role of extending the help to co-accused in getting changed her religion. It is submitted that the marriage of the first informant with co-accused took place nine years ago and the first informant kept silent which gives rise to doubt the veracity of the FIR. It is submitted that the applicants are having no criminal history. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and

¶13

NABAIL No. 10358 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶16

3. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that applicant no. 1-Mohammad Rafique @ Laddan is having criminal history of one case, which has not been explained by him.

¶17

5. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶18

6. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicants no. 2, 3 and 4- Mumtaz, Naseem@Bablu and Sahfiqur Rahman involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned till 15.1.2026 with the following conditions :-

¶19

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶20

(ii) The applicants 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(iii) The applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of interim interim anticipatory bail bail.

¶22

(iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶23

NABAIL No. 10358 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

7. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicants herein.

¶26

8. List this case as fresh on 15.1.2026.

¶27

9. In the meantime, applicant no. 1-Mohammad Rafique @ Laddan is directed to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record his criminal history.

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

January 7, 2026

¶30

Abhishek

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Rafique @ Laddan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Rafique @ Laddan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Jitan Alias Jeetan vs State of U.P.

Abid Alias Gabbar vs State of U.P.

Rinku vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Balvinder @ Bindar vs State of U.P.

Jay Singh vs State of U.P. and Another