Shaqeel @ Sakeel Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

2 The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to FIR/Case Crime No.204 of 2025, under Sections- 87, 61(2), 64(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section- 3(5)1 of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Lilapur, District- Pratapgarh.

¶12

Vide order dated 08.01.2026, this Court had protected the interest of the applicant. The order dated 08.01.2026, referred, reads as under:-

¶13

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶14

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to Case Crime No. 204 of 2025, under Sections- 87, 61(2), 64(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section3(5)1 of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Lalipur, District- Pratapgarh.

¶15

3. While pressing the instant application, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that it is co-accused Sageer, who could be prosecuted in the instant case, as a bare perusal of the FIR in issue indicates that co-accused Sageer committed crime with the informant/victim and the main allegation has been levelled against co-accused Sageer to attract the offence as indicated under Section 64(1) B.N.S., akin to Section 376 IPC (now repealed), and the applicant and other co-accused persons have been implicated being the family members of co-accused Sageer.

¶16

4. It is further stated that the applicant is the real brother of co-accused Sageer and coaccused Gaffar @ Mukhtar is real brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the applicant.

¶17

5. It is further stated that co-accused persons namely Gaffar @ Mukhtar and Ibrar @ Lolakhan have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.11.2025

¶18

NABAIL No. 2113 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

and 08.01.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10826 of 2025 and 13144 of 2025.

¶21

6. It is further stated that the allegations with regard to forceful conversion of religion levelled by the informant/victim are false and concocted, as to this effect no evidence is available with the prosecution so as to establish the same before the trial court.

¶22

7. It is further stated that charge sheet has already been filed in the matter and in these circumstances there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

¶23

8. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and also the case of prosecution against the applicant indicated in the FIR as well as the fact co-accused persons, named above, have already been released on bail, this Court finds that the applicant is entitled to interim protection.

¶24

9. Accordingly, as an interim measure it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant- Shaqeel @ Sakeel Khan be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties (one of family member/close relative) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶26

(ii) That the accused-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; and

¶27

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶28

10. Let the informant be informed by the SHO concerned regarding pendency of the instant case.

¶29

11. Learned AGA is directed to communicate this order to the SHO concerned forthwith and place the proof regarding the information given by the S.H.O. concerned to the complainant/victim by way of an affidavit when the case is listed next.

¶30

12. List/put up this application on 09.02.2026 within top 20 cases."

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the prosecution could not demonstrate from the record that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the prosecution also could not point out any fact based upon which it can be inferred that the applicant has not cooperated with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant- Shaqeel @ Sakeel Khan till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶34

(ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

¶35

NABAIL No. 2113 of 2025

¶36

3

¶37

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her 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 the previous permission of the court;

¶39

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶40

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶41

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶42

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶43

February 25, 2026 Preeti

¶44

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shaqeel @ Sakeel Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaqeel @ Sakeel Khan 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Musabbar @ Gabdu @ Musabbar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Sahay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. Another

Suvesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Roma Verma and 86 Others vs Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Jila Basic Siksha Adhikari Sitapur

Bhaskar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Rohit Saroj vs Sri Surendra Nath Tiwari, Superintendent of Police, Karmik Police, Lko.