# Parminder Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 541
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-28
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No. 1425 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/parminder-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49877
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 153-A, 506,
420, 467, 468 & 471 - U.P. Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2021-Sections 3 & 5(1) - allegations of
conversion with regard to vulnerable
segments of society -applicants being
influential persons are channelizing the
funds collected from overseas group-the
applicants are not cooperating with the
police even after having knowledge of
non-bailable
warrants-Protection
was
granted but the applicants failed to ensure
appearance
before
the
Investigating
Officer which shows that they do not
have any intention to cooperate in the
investigation-More
so,
the
applicants
cannot be excused only that they have not
been named in the FIR-In the present
case, sentiments of public at large are
involved wherein any secular country like
India
the
same
would
amount
in
shattering the peace and harmony-Hence,
the power u/s 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be
utilized
in
a
routine
manner
as
a
substitute for regular bail.(Para 1 to 47)

B. The power of granting 'anticipatory bail'
is extraordinary in character and only in
exceptional cases where it appears that a
person is falsely implicated or a frivolous
case is launched against him or there are
reasonable grounds for holding that a
person accused of an offence is not likely
to abscond, or otherwise misuse his
liberty while on bail, such power is to be
exercised. (Para 9)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,962 of 65,839. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39962 for what follows._

3 All. Parminder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
541
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 541
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 1425 of 2023
And
Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 1376 of 2023

Parminder Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ms. Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose), Sri Mohd.
Kalim, Sri Rizwan Ahmad, Sri Dilip Kumar
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 153-A, 506,
420, 467, 468 & 471 - U.P. Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2021-Sections 3 & 5(1) - allegations of
conversion with regard to vulnerable
segments of society -applicants being
influential persons are channelizing the
funds collected from overseas group-the
applicants are not cooperating with the
police even after having knowledge of
non-bailable
warrants-Protection
was
granted but the applicants failed to ensure
appearance
before
the
Investigating
Officer which shows that they do not
have any intention to cooperate in the
investigation-More
so,
the
applicants
cannot be excused only that they have not
been named in the FIR-In the present
case, sentiments of public at large are
involved wherein any secular country like
India
the
same
would
amount
in
shattering the peace and harmony-Hence,
the power u/s 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be
utilized
in
a
routine
manner
as
a
substitute for regular bail.(Para 1 to 47)

B. The power of granting 'anticipatory bail'
is extraordinary in character and only in
exceptional cases where it appears that a
person is falsely implicated or a frivolous
case is launched against him or there are
reasonable grounds for holding that a
person accused of an offence is not likely
to abscond, or otherwise misuse his
liberty while on bail, such power is to be
exercised. (Para 9)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Manish Yadav Vs St. of U.P. ABAIL NO. 4645
of 2022

2. Suresh Babu Vs St. of U.P. & anr., ABAIL No.
3532 of 2022

3. Nathu Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2021) 6
SCC 64

4. Rev. Stainislaus Vs St. of M.P. & ors. (1977)
1 SCC 677

5. Ali @ Ali Ahmad Vs St. of U.P. & ors., ABAIL
No. 2904 fo 2022

6. Amish Devgan Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2021) 1 SCC
1

7. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & ors. Vs St. of
Punj.(1980) 2 SCC 565

8. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs St. of Mah.
& ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694

9. Sushila Aggarwal & ors. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)
& anr. (2020) 5 SCC 1

10. Sumitha Pradeep Vs Arun Kumar C.K. &
anr..(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1529

11. Pokar Ram Vs St. of Raj. & ors..
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. Saddhna Chaudhary Vs The State of
Rajasthan & anr..

13. Pokar Ram Vs St. of Raj. & ors. (1985) 2
SCC 597

14. Jose Prakash George & ors Vs. St. of U.P. &
ors., CMWP 1814 of 2023

15. Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. St. of Raj. & anr..
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 869

16. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & ors. Vs St. of
Punj.(1980) 2 SCC 565

17. Vipin Kumar Dhir Vs St. of Punj. & anr.
(2021) AIR SC 4865

18. P. Chidambaram Vs ED(2019) 9 SCC 24

19. K.H. Nazar Vs Mathew K. Jacob & ors.
(2020) 14 SCC 126

20. Deepika Singh Vs CAT & ors. (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 1088

21. Lavesh Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC
730

22. St. of M.P. Vs Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC
171

23. In Re: The Issue Of Religion Conversion, WP
(Civil) No. 63 of 2022

24. Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1
SCC 188

25. Mahadev Meena Vs Praveen Rathore & anr.
(2021) SCC OnLine SC 804

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Both anticipatory bail applications
have been moved for grant of anticipatory
bail in Case Crime No. 224 of 2022, under
Sections 153-A, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3 & 5(1) U.P.
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 3 of 2021),
Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur.

2. Instant case, as the prosecution
version surfaces, is; a first information report
was lodged by the informant- Himanshu
Dixit with the allegations that about 90
persons of Hindu religion have been
congregated at Evangelical Church of India,
Hariharganj, Fatehpur for the purpose of their
conversion to Christianity by putting them
under undue influence, coercion and luring
them by playing fraud and promise of easy
money etc.; on receiving this information, the
Government officers reached the place and
interrogated the pastor Vijay Massiah; he
disclosed that the process for conversion was
going on for the last 34 days and that this
process shall be completed within 40 days;
that they have been trying to convert even the
patients admitted to the Mission Hospital and
the employees have played an active role in
the same; the Government officers found 35
persons (named in the F.I.R.) and 20
unknown persons as having been involved in
this conversion of 90 persons of Hindu
community to Christianity. The F.I.R. was
registered under Sections 153A, 506, 420,
467, 468 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/5(1) of Uttar
Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion
of Religion Act and the matter was
investigated upon.

3. Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Rizwan Ahmad,
learned counsel appears for the applicants, Sri
Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate
General/ learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I, and
Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA, appears
for the State - respondent.

4. Brief facts in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 1425 of 2023:
3 All. Parminder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
543

4.1 The applicants are not named as
accused in first information report. The
applicant no. 1 is a Sikh. He performs his
duties as a Clerk/ Cashier in Broadwell
Christian Hospital, Fatehpur, while the
applicant no. 2 is Bishop of Bible
Ceremony at Allahabad. The applicant no.
2 is about 64 years old person and has no
concern with Broadwell Christian Hospital,
Fatehpur in any manner. However, he
happened to be a Member of Broadwell
Christian Society and his name was
reflected from the documents furnished in
response to the notice under Section 91 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that
once upon a time he happened to be a
Member of that Society.

5. Brief facts in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 1376 of 2023:

5.1. The applicant is not named as an
accused in first information report. He is a
Doctor by profession and working as
Senior
Orthopedic
Surgeon
(MS)
in
Harbertpur Christian Hospital Society at
Dehradun after being transferred from
Mussoorie since 07.3.2010. He possesses
Diploma of National Board (DNB) to his
credit.

6.

Arguments
on
behalf
of
Applicants:

6.1 In regard to applicants -
Parminder Singh and Paul Sigamony
Rjmony in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory
Bail Application No. 1425 of 2023, learned
counsel for the applicants invited attention
of the Court to a notice dated 22.11.2022
issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C. (Annexed
at Page-34 of applicants' anticipatory bail
application),
to
Manager,
Broadwell
Christian Mission Hospital, Hariharganj,
District Fatehpur requiring documents
mentioned therein i.e. (1) Name, address
and present status of accused persons
relating to Hospital; (2) Registration
Certificate of the Hospital; (3) Account
Number of Hospital and, (3) Details of
persons/ institutions who provided aid to
the Hospital since 01.01.2022. Further, he
required the Court's attention to another
notice which was subsequently issued to
the applicants under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C.
on 31.1.2023. He submits that on issuance
of
the
said
notice,
the
applicants
apprehended arrest, thereafter anticipatory
bail application was filed before the
District
Judge,
Fatehpur,
which
was
dismissed on 19.1.2023.

6.2 Insofar as applicant - Mathew
Samuel in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 1376 of 2023 is concerned,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that applicant is not
named as an accused in first information
report. He is a Doctor by profession and
working as Senior Orthopedic Surgeon
(MS) in Harbertpur Christian Hospital
Society at Dehradun after being transferred
from Mussoorie since 07.3.2010. He
possesses Diploma of National Board
(DNB) to his credit. Learned counsel for
the applicant has invited attention of the
Court to a notice dated 22.11.2022 issued
under Section 91 Cr.P.C. (Annexed at Page
-
34
of
co-accused
Perminder's
Anticipatory
Bail
Application),
to
Manager, Broadwell Christian Mission
Hospital, Hariharganj, District Fatehpur to
the
persons
who
have
been
added
subsequently
requiring
documents
mentioned therein i.e. (1) Name, address
and present status of accused persons
relating to Hospital; (2) Registration
Certificate of the Hospital; (3) Account
Number of Hospital and, (3) Details of
persons/ institutions who provided aid to
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Hospital since 01.01.2022. Further, he
required the Court's attention to another
notice which was issued to the applicant
under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. on 31.1.2023,
Annexed as Annexure-4 to the instant
application. He submits that on issuance of
the said notice the applicant apprehended
his arrest, thereafter anticipatory bail
application was filed before the District
Judge, Fatehpur, which was dismissed on
19.1.2023. The applicant happens to be the
Member of Broadwell Christian Society.
The said Society runs various hospitals in
different places including hospitals at
Fatehpur as well as Dehradun where the
applicant is posted. The applicant was
inducted as a member sometimes in the
year 2005. He very occasionally used to
visit different places including Fatehpur in
meetings of the Society, which is the only
connection of the applicant with the
Broadwell Hospital.

6.3 Learned Senior Counsel next
submits that apart from the merits of this
case in actual sphere, there is a legal
submission that the FIR has been registered
at the instance of Sri Himanshu Dixit, SahMantri, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, who is not
the person competent to lodge first
information report in view of the provisions
of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2021. He further advanced that there is no
averment to this effect in the FIR nor has
any material been made available which
establishes competence of the person on
whose instance the FIR is lodged, which
defects the FIR on legal spectrum.

6.4 Learned counsel of the applicants
has drawn attention of the Court to a
remand order whereby the Chief Judicial
Magistrate concerned refusing the remand
in other Sections, granted it only under
Sections
153A/
506
of
IPC.
The
investigation is in process. The applicants
are not, at all, connected with the present
incident. They were not present at the place
of incident where the mass conversion was
being carried out, however, merely because
of their association with the Society which
runs as many as five hospitals would not
attract complicity in commission of the
offence and the applicants are not feeling
shy
to
cooperate
the
process
of
investigation but instead of effecting
custodial
interrogation,
they
seeks
indulgence to grant anticipatory bail.

6.5 Insofar as Sections 153A and 506
IPC are concerned, learned counsel for the
applicants submits that the applicants are
proved to be not present at the place of
incident. There is no material to prove prior
meeting of minds.

6.6 Learned counsel for the applicants
furthers his argument stating that nine
persons who were produced on that date
have been enlarged on bail by the
Magistrate.

6.7 Learned Senior Counsel also
points out that few other persons have
already been released on anticipatory bail,
thus the applicants are entitled for the same
on the ground of parity.

6.8 Learned counsel next submits that
Section 4 Cr.P.C. provides if there is any
special Statute, the investigation would be
conducted as per the Special Statute along
with enquiry and the trial. For the purposes
of Section 4 it should be a legal first
information report, however, in the present
case the informant is not competent as per
the provisions of the Act, 2021. The
Legislature bearing in mind the expected
misuse kept a general person at bay from
3 All. Parminder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
545
lodging first information report and it, in
itself, is the case of the State that FIR was
lodged under the Act, 2021. However, the
informant has no authority to initiate FIR.

7. SUBMISSIONS BY STATE:

7.1 Sri Manish Goel, Addl. Advocate
General submits that it is a case of mass
conversion, thus, the proviso to the Section
- 5 of the Act, 2021 would be applicable,
wherein the punishment up to ten years is
prescribed. He submits that the object of
Act, 2021 is to provide for prohibition of
unlawful conversion from one religion to
another by misrepresentation, force, undue
influence, coercion, allurement or by any
fraudulent means. The FIR has been lodged
under Section 153A IPC, which envisages
acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
and since it is an offence against public
tranquillity,
therefore,
insofar
as
the
legality concerning process of lodging FIR
by third party, victims had also lodged FIR
that made separate cause of action as also
FIR has been lodged under several sections
of IPC, therefore, third party cannot be
ousted from lodging FIR for the offence
against public tranquillity. He further
argues that offences for which present FIR
has been lodged have warring ramifications
as some offences are those which violate
fundamental
rights
of
an
individual,
whereas, the other affect the mass i.e.
public at large. There is abundance of
details showing applicants' complicity with
other
persons
who
were
regularly
connected for the purposes of promoting
mass conversion.

7.2 Mr. Goel further submits that
the police found that there were about
100 application forms including that of
minors,
along
with
pamphlets
for
adopting and propagating Christianity
mentioning therein that Rs. 35000/-
would be paid if one adopts Christianity;
there were trainers to educate how to
propagate
Christianity
and
to
visit
different places for gathering people and
bringing them to motivate for conversion
purpose.

7.3

Learned
Addl.
Advocate
General in the course of his arguments
emphasized over the ingredients of
Section 2 of the Act, 2021 which
elaborates the definitions of Allurement,
Coercion, Conversion, Fraudulent means,
Mass
Conversion,
Minor,
Religion,
Religion Convertor and Undue Influence.
Next, he submits that statement of Issac
Frank (CD-51) shows how the money
was
being
received
from
various
countries and subsequently channelized.
There are different kinds of organizations
and the present one is run by Mr. R.B.
Lal. It has also been argued that Section 4
of Cr.P.C. provides for investigation to be
done by same provisions, subject to
enactment of provision in the Special
Act. Here, the Act, 2021 does not provide
any mechanism for investigation, and, if
so, the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure would apply as also the Act,
2021 does not prohibits operation of
Cr.P.C.

7.4

Stressing
upon
applicant's
complicity in mass conversion, learned
AAG shows that the statement of Santosh
Kumar Saini, an independent witness of the
offence & employee of the Hospital since
2017 who disclosed names of several
persons belonging to Hindu family of poor
economic condition were forced to adopt
other religion by conversion. He stated
about the allurements provided to persons
belonging to marginal section of the society
for conversion. He also revealed Hariharganj
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incident dated 24.1.2023 pointing out the
identity of influential persons (CD-68).

7.5 Mr. Goel next submits that the
applicants have been issued non-bailable
warrants and it is a well settled law of the
Apex Court that wherein non-bailable
warrants are in operation, the accusedapplicants in such cases are not entitled for
anticipatory bail. It is the culpability of the
applicant only to establish that he is entitled
for grant of anticipatory bail. He has drawn
attention of the Court to the statements of
Sayapal and Kishanpal further stating that
charge-sheet has been submitted against 43
persons on 27.1.2023 and Section 8 of the
Act, 2021 has also been added. Thus,
culpability
of
the
applicant
is
well
established from the sort of work which he
was doing, as also, the funds in the manner
being channelized.

7.6 Learned counsel for the
applicants also placed on record a
judgement of the Apex Court in the
Case of Rev. Stainislaus v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others, wherein
the
term
''allurement'
fell
for
consideration and expression ''public
order' has been dealt with extensively.

7.7 Relying upon a judgement in
the case of Ali @ Ali Ahmad v. State of
U.P. and 2 Others Mr. Manish Goel
submits that it is not necessary that the
accused
be
declared
proclaimed
offender,
but,
intention
of
not
cooperating in the investigation is
sufficient, as in the present case even
after having knowledge of non-bailable
warrants
the
applicants
are
not
cooperating with the police and thus
they are not entitled for consideration to
be released on anticipatory bail.

7.8 Learned AAG further relied
upon the judgement in the case of
Amish Devgan v. Union of India and
others pressing upon the principles of
diminished
autonomy
wherein
underprivileged section of society in
terms of money, caste, gender have to
be protected. He submits that hospital
in question which is a Mission Hospital
is the best example of diminished
autonomy.

7.9 It is argued that the following
material has been collected to show the
involvement of the applicants in the
present case:

(i)
Statements
of
witness
Pramod Kumar Dixit, Sanjay Singh and
Rajesh Kumar Trivedi, which form part
of CD Parcha No. 9 and of independent
witnesses, namely, Keshan and Satya
Pal forming part of CD Parch No. 12,
stated
to
have
been
allured
for
conversion.

(ii) CD Parcha Nos. 15, 16, 20
and 29 show that the remand was
accepted in all Sections mentioned in
FIR.

(iii) In CD Parcha No. 18,
victims Keshan and Satyapal have
narrated the entire version in detail.

(iv) CD Parcha No 26 shows
statements of ten witnesses, namely,
Honey S/o Rampal; Suresh S/o Kallu;
Riya D/o Govind; Brijesh Kumar S/o
Rajnesh Prasad; Ramesh S/o Pannalal;
Rampal S/o Late Bajpali; Ashok Kumar
S/o Late Sualal; Vijay S/o Late Chunku
Prasad; Vijay S/o Late Vishkarma
Lohar, and Amit Maurya S/o Ram
Shriomani Maurya. They have stated
that Church along with Vijay Massiah
(Pastor) and other accused persons are
3 All. Parminder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
547
involved in unlawful conversion of
large number of persons to Christianity.

(v) In CD Parcha No. 29 statement
of victim Sanjay Singh has been recorded.
CD Parcha No. 36 shows that 39 accused
persons have obtained orders under Section
82 Cr.P.C.

(vi) Statement of victim Virendra
Kumar has been recorded in CD Parcha No.
38. CD Parcha No. 41, which shows that
notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was given to
Dr. Mathew Samuel, Chariman, Broadwell
Christian
Hospital
Society,
Fatehpur.
Replying to the said notice, he supplied copy
of Aadhar Cards of 17 accused persons being
employee of the Society, Bank Account
details along with society registration papers.

(vi) Accused Daud Massiah and
Ratna Massiah - co accused have confessed
about conversion being carried out with the
assistance of applicants and other accused
persons
naming
various
organizations
including the applicants for being involved in
such offence which are recorded in CD
Parcha No. 46.

(vii) Parcha No. 48 is statement of
independent
witness
Dinesh
Shukla,
examined on 19.12.2022 who has stated
complicity of the applicants. In CD Parcha
No. 50 statements of persons who have
mentioned the names of applicants and have
shown their complicity in the offence has
been recorded.

(viii) CD Parcha No. 54 shows a
list of beneficiaries who were converted and
their
photographs
were
found
from
Broadwell Christian Hospital.

(ix) In spite of notice under Section
41(2) Cr.P.C. Dr. Mathew Samuel and
Parminder Singh, Clerk, they did not turn up
as is evident from CD Parcha No. 55.

(x) In CD Parcha No. 61 names
of
various
institutions
involved
in
conversion have been revealed.

(xi) CD Parcha No. 64 is a
collection of various documents regarding
mass conversion found from Broadwell
Christian Hospital wherein material with
regard to religious conversion has also been
found.

(xii) Statements and details of
SHUATS Bank account were taken by the
I.O. which forms part of CD Parcha No. 67.
Charge-sheet has been been filed against 44
accused persons on 27.1.2023.

7.10 Apart from the above grounds,
learned AAG has opposed the anticipatory
bail applications on the following grounds:

(i) The incident created a lot of
flutter and tension amongst the persons of
one community and also created a law and
order situation. In aftermath, the persons of
one community collected at a place and
raised slogans and the police had difficult
time in controlling them and any untoward
incident could have taken place if they
were not sufficiently prepared and alert.

(ii) It is stated by one of the
witnesses Shri Keshan that on same kind of
assurances like free of cost medical
assistance, education and employment to
his children and monetary benefits once he
is converted to their faith, he was lured into
this process; that his Aadhaar card was
taken and his name was changed from Shri
Keshan to Keshan Joseph; he was also
threatened by the accused persons that in
case he disclosed the incident to anybody,
his life will be at risk.

(iii)
There
was
a
bigger
conspiracy being hatched by the applicants
and
their
associates
with
wider
ramifications; they were acting in an
organized manner for mass conversion.
This is not a case where an individual was
driven by his conscience to convert to a
different faith, but, the accused persons in
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tandem with each other systematically went
on to influence the persons who usually
came in their contact for medical treatment
or otherwise. Their poor socio-economic
condition was exploited to lure them into
participating in mass conversion. The offer
for easy money, jobs etc. were used as a
bait to tempt them in this incident. The
incident might seem not so grave on
surface but had a hidden agenda behind it.

(iv)) It is also argued that there is
no
substance
in
the
argument
that
applicants have been falsely implicated or
that F.I.R. was motivated one.

(v) The bail at this stage may
prove a hurdle in effective investigation in
this case.

7.11 Learned AAG submits that while
rejecting the anticipatory bail application,
the Sessions Court has discussed in details
about non-cooperation of the applicants in
investigation in an offence which is
affecting the public at large.

8. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the
material available on record.

9. The gravamen of the matter,
wherein the applicants before this Court are
for
grant
of
anticipatory
bail,
is
''Conversion'. Party titled as applicant in
both applications calls it ''conversion by
law', however, the party - Respondent
worded it as ''conversion for allurement'.

10. This Court finds it more
appropriate
to
align
the
arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the
applicants and learned Additional Advocate
General for the State, factual and legal
aspects, object and principles, with the
ingredients of conditions for the grant of
anticipatory bail as well as the law settled
in respect thereof.

11. Object of section 438 Cr.P.C. is
that a person should not be unnecessarily
harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy
personal vendetta or grudge of complainant
or any other person operating the things
directly or from behind the curtains. It is
well settled that discretionary power
conferred by the legislature on this Court
cannot be put in a straitjacket formula, but
such discretionary power either grant or
refusal of anticipatory bail has to be
exercised carefully in appropriate cases
with circumspection on the basis of the
available material after evaluating the facts
of the particular case and considering other
relevant factors (nature and gravity of
accusation, role attributed to accused,
conduct of accused, criminal antecedents,
possibility of the applicants to flee from
justice, apprehension of tampering the
witnesses or threat to the complainant,
impact of grant of anticipatory bail in
investigation, trial or society, etc.) with
meticulous precision maintaining balance
between the conflicting interest, namely,
sanctity of individual liberty and interest of
society.

12. In the present case, apart from
offences fall amongst other Sections of
IPC i.e. Sections 153-A, 506, 420, 467,
468, 471 IPC, allegation of religious
conversion
by
use
of
allurement,
deception or force involved under Section
3 & 5 (1) of the Act, 2021 is involved.
Allegation of conversion is with regard to
vulnerable segments of society. The
applicants herein are praying for grant of
anticipatory bail, thus, before adverting
to facts and law settled applicable on the
present case, it is apposite to quote
Section 438 Cr.P.C.:
3 All. Parminder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
549

"438. Direction for grant bail to
person apprehending arrest.--(1) Where
any person has reason to believe that he
may be arrested on accusation of having
committed a non-bailable offence, he may
apply to the High Court or the Court of
Session for a direction under this section
that in the event of such arrest he shall be
released on bail; and that Court may, after
taking into consideration, inter alia, the
following factors, namely:--

(i) the nature and gravity of the
accusation;

(ii)
the
antecedents
of
the
applicant including the fact as to whether
he has previously undergone imprisonment
on conviction by a Court in respect of any
cognizable offence;

(iii)
the
possibility
of
the
applicant to flee from justice; and

(iv) where the accusation has
been made with the object of injuring or
humiliating the applicant by having him so
arrested;
either reject the application forthwith or
issue an interim order for the grant of
anticipatory bail:

Provided that where the High
Court or, as the case may be, the Court of
Session, has not passed any interim order
under this sub-section or has rejected the
application for grant of anticipatory bail, it
shall be open to an officer in-charge of a
police station to arrest, without warrant, the
applicant on the basis of the accusation
apprehended in such application.

(2) Where the High Court or, as
the case may be, the Court of Session,
considers it expedient to issue an interim
order to grant anticipatory bail under subsection (1), the Court shall indicate
therein the date, on which the application
for grant of anticipatory bail shall be
finally heard for passing an order thereon,
as the Court may deem fit, arid if the
Court
passes
any
order
granting
anticipatory bail, such order shall include
inter
alia
the
following
conditions,
namely--

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

(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 him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;

(iii) that the applicant shall not
leave
India
without
the
previous
permission of the Court; and

(iv) such other conditions as
may be imposed under sub-section (3) of
Section 437, as if the bail were granted
under that section.

Explanation.--The final order
made on an application for direction
under sub-section (1); shall not be
construed as an interlocutory order for
the purpose of this Code.

(3) Where the Court grants an
interim order under sub-section (1), it
shall forthwith cause a notice being not
less than seven days notice, together with
a copy of such order to be served on the
Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent
of Police, with a view to give the Public
Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of
being heard when the application shall be
finally heard by the Court.

(4) On the date indicated in the
interim order under sub-section (2), the
Court shall hear the Public Prosecutor
and
the
applicant
and
after
due
consideration of their contentions, it may
either confirm, modify or cancel the
interim order.

(5) The High Court or the Court
of Session, as the case may be, shall finally
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dispose of an application for grant of
anticipatory bail under sub-section (1),
within thirty days of the date of such
application;

(6) Provisions of this section shall
not be applicable,--

(a) to the offences arising out of,-
-

(i)
the
Unlawful
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967;

(ii) the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985;

(iii) the Official Secret Act, 1923;

(iv) the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986.

(b) in the offences, in which
death sentence can be awarded.

(7) If an application under this
section has been made by any person to the
High Court, no application by the same
person shall be entertained by the Court of
Session. [U.P. Act 4 of 2019, S. 2 (w.e.f. 16-2019).

13. The the words ''allurement' and
''undue influence', to which the entire
issue encircles, as defined in Section 2 of
the Act, 2021, reads thus:

(a)
"Allurement"
means
and
includes offer of any temptation in the form
of--

(i) any gift, gratification, easy
money or material benefit either in cash or
kind;

(ii) employment, free education
in reputed school run by any religious
body; or

(iii)
better
lifestyle,
divine
displeasure or otherwise;

***

***

***

***

***

***

(j) "Undue influence" means the
unconscientious use by one person of
his/her power or influence over another in
order to persuade the other to act in
accordance with the will of the person
exercising such influence;

14. A Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab,
dealt with the considerations for grant of
anticipatory bail in detail. Relying upon the
Constitution
Bench
judgement
in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), the
Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa
Mhetre
v.
State
of
Maharashtra and others, laid down
parameters and factors to be considered
while
dealing
with
application
for
anticipatory bail:

"112. ...

(i) The nature and gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the accused
must be properly comprehended before
arrest is made;

(ii)
The
antecedents
of
the
applicant including the fact as to whether
the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a court in
respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii)
The
possibility
of
the
applicant to flee from justice;

(iv)
The
possibility
of
the
accused's likelihood to repeat similar or
other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have
been made only with the object of injuring
or humiliating the applicant by arresting
him or her;

(vi)
Impact
of
grant
of
anticipatory bail particularly in cases of
large magnitude affecting a very large
number of people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the
entire
available
material
against
the
accused very carefully. The court must also
3 All. Parminder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
551
clearly comprehend the exact role of the
accused in the case. The cases in which the
accused is implicated with the help of
Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code,
1860 the court should consider with even
greater
care
and
caution
because
overimplication in the cases is a matter of
common knowledge and concern;

(viii)
While
considering
the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a
balance has to be struck between two
factors, namely, no prejudice should be
caused
to
the
free,
fair
and
full
investigation
and
there
should
be
prevention of harassment, humiliation and
unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix)
The
court
to
consider
reasonable apprehension of tampering of
the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;

(x)
Frivolity
in
prosecution
should always be considered and it is only
the element of genuineness that shall have
to be considered in the matter of grant of
bail and in the event of there being some
doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events,
the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

15. Guiding principles in dealing with
applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
have
been
laid
down
by
another
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and
others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another. Said concluding factors read thus:

"92. This Court, in the light of the
above discussion in the two judgments, and
in the light of the answers to the reference,
hereby clarifies that the following need to
be kept in mind by courts, dealing with
applications under Section 438 CrPC.

92.1.
Consistent
with
the
judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State
of Punjab, when a person complains of
apprehension of arrest and approaches for
order, the application should be based on
concrete facts (and not vague or general
allegations) relatable to one or other
specific offence. The application seeking
anticipatory bail should contain bare
essential facts relating to the offence, and
why the applicant reasonably apprehends
arrest, as well as his side of the story. These
are essential for the court which should
consider his application, to evaluate the
threat or apprehension, its gravity or
seriousness and the appropriateness of any
condition that may have to be imposed. It is
not essential that an application should be
moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be
moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear
and
there
is
reasonable
basis
for
apprehending arrest.

92.2. It may be advisable for the
court, which is approached with an
application under Section 438, depending
on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest)
to issue notice to the Public Prosecutor and
obtain facts, even while granting limited
interim anticipatory bail.

92.3. Nothing in Section 438
CrPC, compels or obliges courts to impose
conditions limiting relief in terms of time,
or upon filing of FIR, or recording of
statement of any witness, by the police,
during investigation or inquiry, etc. While
considering an application (for grant of
anticipatory bail) the court has to consider
the nature of the offence, the role of the
person, the likelihood of his influencing the
course of investigation, or tampering with
evidence
(including
intimidating
witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice
(such as leaving the country), etc. The
courts would be justified -- and ought to
impose conditions spelt out in Section
437(3) CrPC [by virtue of Section 438(2)].
The need to impose other restrictive
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conditions, would have to be judged on a
case-by-case basis, and depending upon the
materials produced by the State or the
investigating agency. Such special or other
restrictive conditions may be imposed if the
case or cases warrant, but should not be
imposed in a routine manner, in all cases.
Likewise, conditions which limit the grant
of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they
are required in the facts of any case or
cases; however, such limiting conditions
may not be invariably imposed.

92.4. Courts ought to be generally
guided by considerations such as the nature
and gravity of the offences, the role
attributed to the applicant, and the facts of
the case, while considering whether to
grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it.
Whether to grant or not is a matter of
discretion; equally whether and if so, what
kind of special conditions are to be
imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on
facts of the case, and subject to the
discretion of the court.

92.5. Anticipatory bail granted
can, depending on the conduct and
behaviour of the accused, continue after
filing of the charge-sheet till end of trial.

92.6. An order of anticipatory
bail should not be "blanket" in the sense
that it should not enable the accused to
commit further offences and claim relief of
indefinite protection from arrest. It should
be confined to the offence or incident, for
which apprehension of arrest is sought, in
relation to a specific incident. It cannot
operate in respect of a future incident that
involves commission of an offence.

92.7. An order of anticipatory
bail does not in any manner limit or restrict
the rights or duties of the police or
investigating agency, to investigate into the
charges against the person who seeks and is
granted pre-arrest bail.

92.8. The observations in Sibbia
regarding "limited custody" or "deemed
custody" to facilitate the requirements of
the investigative authority, would be
sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the
provisions of Section 27, in the event of
recovery of an article, or discovery of a
fact, which is relatable to a statement made
during such event (i.e. deemed custody). In
such event, there is no question (or
necessity) of asking the accused to
separately surrender and seek regular bail.
Sibbia had observed that: (SCC P. 584,
para 19)

"19. ... if and when the occasion
arises, it may be possible for the
prosecution to claim the benefit of Section
27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a
discovery of facts made in pursuance of
information supplied by a person released
on bail by invoking the principle stated by
this Court in State of U.P. v. Deoman
Upadhyaya."

92.9. It is open to the police or
the investigating agency to move the court
concerned, which grants anticipatory bail,
for a direction under Section 439(2) to
arrest the accused, in the event of violation
of any term, such as absconding, noncooperating during investigation, evasion,
intimidation or inducement to witnesses
with a view to influence outcome of the
investigation or trial, etc."

16. The Apex Court in the case of
Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K.
& Another noticing common argument
being canvassed in numerous anticipatory
bail matters that no custodial interrogation
is required, observed that there appears to
be a serious misconception of law that if no
case of custodial interrogation is made out
by the prosecution, then that alone would
be a good ground to grant anticipatory.
3 All. Parminder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
553
Relevant part of the said judgements reads
thus:

"16. ...In many anticipatory bail
matters, we have noticed one common
argument being canvassed that no custodial
interrogation is required and, therefore,
anticipatory bail may be granted. There
appears to be a serious misconception of
law
that
if
no
case
for
custodial
interrogation
is
made
out
by
the
prosecution, then that alone would be a
good ground to grant anticipatory bail.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the
relevant aspects to be considered along with
other grounds while deciding an application
seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many
cases in which the custodial interrogation of
the accused may not be required, but that
does not mean that the prima facie case
against the accused should be ignored or
overlooked and he should be granted
anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing
that the court hearing an anticipatory bail
application should consider is the prima facie
case put up against the accused.