# Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 516
- **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. 1346 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-bihari-lal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49871
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

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)
3 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
517
The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,794 of 87,227. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39794 for what follows._

516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ix) It is argued that there is more
than sufficient evidence to show the
complicity of the applicant in this case and
that he is one of the main accused persons,
hence this is not a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail.

6. I considered the nature of
allegations, the submissions of both the
sides and went through all the material on
record. It may be noted that an anticipatory
bail is not a substitute for regular bail. The
parameters for grant of anticipatory bail are
fundamentally different from the grant of
regular bail in certain respects. The
exercise of this extra-ordinary powers calls
for existence of some circumstances which
may prompt this court to intervene in the
regular process of law for the purpose of
furthering the ends of justice and for
preventing abuse/misuse of process of law.
I do not find any material to form an
opinion that the name of the applicant has
been dragged in to merely bring disgrace to
his name. I do not find any ground good
enough to give benefit of anticipatory bail
to the applicant, hence, the present
anticipatory bail application is rejected.

7. It is made clear that observations
made herein shall not in any way affect
the learned trial Judge in forming his
independent opinion based on material
before him at any stage of the trial.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 516
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. 1346 of 2023
And
Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 1348 of 2023

Vinod Bihari Lal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri Kumar Vikrant

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)
3 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
517
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..

12. Saddhna Chaudhary Vs The St. of Raj. &
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, is that; 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
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. Facts & Arguments of learned
Counsel
for
the
Applicant
in
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1346
of 2023:

3.1. Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Sri
Kumar Vikrant, learned counsel appear for
the applicant.

3.2. Learned counsel appearing for
the applicant submits that the applicant is,
at
present,
working
as
Director
(Administration),
Sam
Higginbottom
University of Agriculture, Technology and
Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj (Allahabad), a
Christian Minority Institution. He keeps a
long stint of 37 years of unblemished
service career in SHUATS, however, due
to political change in State, he has been
embroiled in 11 criminal cases between
2017 and 2018. The applicant professes
Christian faith. He is being implicated in a
false case of mass conversion, whereas on
14.4.2022 the applicant and his family
members were peacefully congregated to
participate in Special Prayer of Maundy
Thursday which is attended by Christian
community in respective Churches to offer
special prayer. However, the informant
along with his close associates barged into
the
Church
and
created
chaos
and
turbulence. A first information report was
lodged by the informant 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. Remand of few arrested
accused was sought in various Sections,
however, the learned Magistrate granted
remand only under Sections 153-A and 506
IPC.

3.3. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that after about eight
months from the date of incident, the
applicant has been issued notice under
Section 41(1) The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973,
dated
16.12.2022
(Annexure-1), giving rise to apprehension
of the applicant's arrest. Ostensibly, the
said notice appears to have been issued for
the
purposes
of
getting
statements
recorded. To substantiate his submission
regarding apprehension of arrest, he draws
attention of the Court to Section 41(1) of
Cr.P.C. which says any police officer may
without an order from a Magistrate and
without warrant, arrest any person who
commits a cognizable offence.

3.4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has drawn attention of the Court to the
statements of witnesses, Issac Frank and
Dinesh Shukla, recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. He submits that star witness of
prosecution, Issac Frank, himself belongs
to Christian religion and resides in
Prayagraj, thus, no occasion arises for him
to be converted. Since Issac Frank was
chargesheeted and dismissed from services
and later on he was reinstated after
3 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
519
tendering
apologies,
thus,
he
is
an
interested witness. Second witness Dinesh
Shukla is an ex-student who was suspended
on the allegations of misbehaving with
female students. Learned counsel questions
the fairness of Sri Dinesh Shukla also as a
witness in this case.

3.5. The Investigating Officer - Amit
Kumar Mishra, has also been mistrusted by
the learned counsel for the applicant as
being the Chawki Incharge of the Police
Station Naini, Prayagraj because of friendly
relations with other prosecution witnesses.

3.6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that there is no allegation
against the applicant regarding mass
conversion, as admittedly, the applicant
was not present at Fatehpur on the date
specified in FIR.

3.7. Learned counsel for the applicant
has placed emphasis on Section 3 of the
Act, 2021 which provides prohibition of
conversion from one religion to another
religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud,
undue influence, coercion and allurement,
clearly specifying that conversion on the
aforesaid grounds from one religion to
another
religion
is
prohibited.
False
allegations regarding allurement and undue
influence for the purposes of mass
conversion have been made. It has also
been alleged that free treatment was being
provided to patients in the hospital which
can not be said to be a temptation for
purposes of mass conversion.

3.8. Learned counsel for the applicant
emphasised
upon
the
definition
of
''allurement' and ''undue influence'. He
submits that providing free treatment to
patients who are in immediate need of it,
does not amount to undue influence or
allurement, rather it would be a failure on
the part of the State to provide basic
facilities to individuals in need of the same.

3.9. Emphasizing upon Section 5 of
the Act, 2021 wherein punishment for
contravention of provisions of Section 3 of
the Act, 2021 is provided, learned counsel
for
the
applicant
submits
that
the
punishment for allurement shall not be less
than one year, which may extend up to
three years. Placing the said provision
forth, he tried to submit that the offence is
not serious in nature and there being no
allegation to be proved against the
applicant, who is a respectable person,
however, concerted efforts are being made
to implicate him in the offence and he is
being victimized for reasons best known to
the persons concerned.

3.10. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that as per
Section-7 of the Act, 2021 all the offences
under the Act, 2021 are considered to be
cognizable and triable by the courts of
Sessions, therefore, issuance of notices in
this regard to ensure compliance of the
Section leads to apprehension of arrest of
the applicant. To brief the apprehension of
arrest, he has also placed the provisions of
Sections 209 and 437 Cr.P.C.

3.11.

In
paragraph-13
of
the
anticipatory bail application, it has been
averred that six cases have been lodged
against the applicant by office bearers of a
political organization, namely, Diwakar
Nath Tripathi and Dr. Shyam Prakash
Dwivedi, which shows that the applicant is
being dragged into the case.

3.12. In paragraph-37 of the affidavit
filed in support of anticipatory bail
application,
learned
counsel
for
the
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant
has
mentioned
about
the
procedure which is to be adopted for
conversion through Baptism.

3.13. From the evidences collected
during the course of investigation, certain
C.D. Parchas have been placed by the
learned A.G.A., wherein statements under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of some
persons have been recorded, however,
learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the statements under Section 164
Cr.P.C. should be given importance over
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As
already submitted, name of the applicant
has surfaced in the matter on the basis of
statements of two interested witnesses and
the Investigating Officer, who are biased
against the applicant. Reliance cannot be
placed upon Section 164 Cr.P.C., as the
same is an afterthought and the persons
who earlier did not utter any such
allegation, are turning up with fallacious
application after a number of days since
lodging of the FIR. He also submits that no
material connecting the applicant has been
placed till date to show involvement of the
applicant in the aforesaid case.

3.14. Mr. Shukla relied upon the
judgements of this Court in the case of
Manish Yadav v. State of U.P. and
Suresh Babu v. State of U.P. and
another, dated 14.7.2022 and 16.7.2022
respectively, wherein it has been observed
that in case at the time of filing of
anticipatory bail application the applicant
was not a proclaimed offender, the bar
imposed by the Apex Court for entertaining
the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
proclaimed offender would not attract.

3.15. Learned counsel for the
applicant also apprised the Court of filing a
a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 1814 of 2023 challenging the
FIR dated 23.1.2023 filed by the victim,
giving rise to Case Crime No. 54 of 2023,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506, 120-B
IPC & Section 3/5(1) of the Act, 2021,
wherein the judgement was informed to
have been reserved by Hon'ble Division
Bench.

3.16. Some photographs showing the
apprehension of arrest have been placed by
learned counsel for the applicant.

4. Facts & Arguments of learned
Counsel
for
the
Applicant
in
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1348
of 2023:

4.1. Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kumar
Vikrant, learned counsel appears for the
applicant.

4.2. Learned Senior Counsel submits
that the applicant is a Scientist and Vice
Chancellor of SHUATS. He is not aware of
the chain of events alleged to have occurred
on the date of incident. The applicant has
no concern with Evangelical Church of
India, Hariharganj, Fatehpur or Mission
Hospital. He has illegally been dragged into
controversy due to preconceived notion of
Police Officials against the applicant.

4.3. It has also been argued by learned
counsel for the applicant that the offence is
punishable with only imprisonment up to
five years, thus, as per the provisions of
First Schedule of Cr.P.C., five years
sentence is in minor offences, hence the
applicant should not be denied anticipatory
bail. He next argued that conversion to
another religion is not an offence per se. It
is open for everybody to follow the
procedure to get himself or herself
3 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
521
converted, however, it should not be by
tempting or alluring. Allurement is an offer
and it is of two types: one either by force or
by temptation.

4.4. Learned Senior Counsel further
submits that the applicant has been
implicated to add fun in the case. If the
confession is ignored for the time being,
there is nothing to show that conversion
took place. He also submits that after about
nine months, name of the applicant,
surfaced in the statement of Issac Frank,
came into picture. In regard to criminal
history, he submits that criminal history of
accused is relevant but where no evidence
is against the accused, criminal history
should not be taken into consideration for
grant of bail. It has also been submitted by
learned Senior Counsel that insofar as
confessional statements are concerned,
these are wholly inadmissible as also the
statements of 65-70 persons are verbatim
reproduction of FIR.

4.5. It is further argued that the
allegations regarding conversion going on,
can, at the utmost, be said to be preparation
of conversion and it cannot be said that
even an attempt was being made for
converting persons from one religion to
another religion. Placing reliance on
Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, 2021 which is
a Special Act, he further submits that
provisions of the Act, 2021 should be
strictly applied because safeguards have
been provided in aforesaid Sections to
prevent forceful conversion of any person.

4.6. Learned Senior Counsel submits
that keeping in mind Sections 8 and 9 of
the Act, 2021, no allegation in this regard
has been found against the applicant. The
Act of 2021 came into force on 27.11.2020.
The allegations regarding funding for the
purposes of alluring persons for mass
conversion is lacking as no activity of
applicant has been found in syphoning of
funds for the purposes of mass conversion.

4.7. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant submitted that earlier a writ
petition
was
filed
by
the
applicant
challenging the FIR dated 15.4.2022 giving
rise to Case Crime No. 224 of 2022, under
Sections 153A, 506, 420, 467, 468 IPC and
Section 3/5(1) of the Act, 2021 which was
dismissed on the ground of locus as the
applicant
was
not
named
in
first
information report.

4.8. Lastly, while placing reliance
upon a judgement passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Nathu Singh v. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors learned Senior
Counsel submits that it is necessary to
protect the person apprehending arrest for
sometime due to exceptional circumstances
as in the present case and as few persons
have already been released on anticipatory
bail, the applicant is entitled for the same
on the ground of parity also.

5. SUBMISSIONS OF STATE:

5.1. Sri Manish Goel, learned
Additional Advocate
General/ learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Sand
and Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate-I,
appears for the State.

5.2. Mr. Manish Goel, learned Addl.
Advocate General, appearing for the State
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
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conversion from one religion to another
religion 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 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.

5.3. 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.

5.4. Learned Addl. Advocate General
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.

5.5. Replying to the submission
regarding a writ petition filed by the applicant
- R.B. Lal, Sri Manish Goel submits that
though the petition was dismissed on the
ground that the applicant was not named in
FIR, however, it has been observed by the
Division Bench in the said case that as per
settled position of law, if upon perusal of FIR
accepting every word therein to be correct, if
no offence is disclosed, the FIR is liable to be
quashed. In the present case though the
petition was dismissed being not maintainable
as the applicant being not named in the
aforesaid case, a perusal of the FIR discloses
offence against the applicant and during the
course of investigation pursuant to said FIR,
material evidence has been collected to point
out the culpability of the applicant.

5.6. In regard to the submissions of
police raid in the office of the applicant - V.B.
Lal by the SIT, learned Addl. Advocate
General submits that the team was constituted
for
investigating
the
matter
regarding
allegations in FIR with respect to syphoning of
funds.

5.7.

Stressing
upon
applicant's
complicity in mass conversion, learned
AAG shows that the statement of Santosh
3 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
523
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
incident
dated
24.1.2023
pointing out the identity of influential
persons (CD-68).

5.8. Mr. Goel 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
applicants
is
well
established from the sort of work which he
was doing as also the funds in the manner
being channelized.

5.9. 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.

5.10. To demonstrate defiance by the
applicants, learned Additional Advocate
General sought attention of the Court to the
interim order granted by this Court on
09.2.2023, in the following terms:

"It is provided that, if the
applicant appears before the Investigating
Officer on 13th & 15th February, 2023 and
files an undertaking to that effect before the
Investigating Officer on 13th February,
2023 itself surrendering his passport, if
any,
to
further
the
investigation,
Investigating Officer shall ensure that
neither the applicant be arrested nor any
coercive action is taken in the present case
till 15.2.2023. It is also directed that the
Senior Officials as well as Investigating
Officer concerned shall ensure that the
applicant be not arrested on 13th and 15th
February,
2023
when
he
comes
to
cooperate in the investigation."

5.11. It is next submitted that the
applicants were expected to cooperate in
the investigation appearing before the
Investigating Officer on the dates given in
the order itself i.e. 13th February and 15th
February, 2023, but they failed to abide by
the directions of this Court whereas the
Investigating Officer waited for them on
13th February, 2023 up till 11:40 p.m. and
on 15th February, 2023 up till 11:21 p.m.,
thus demeanour of the applicants amounts
to breach of the order passed by this Court
which shows sheer disrespect of the spirit
of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and also amounts to
misuse of liberty, hence the applicants are
not entitled to be released on anticipatory
bail on this ground itself.

5.12. Relying upon a judgement of
this Court 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
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
they are not entitled for consideration to be
released on anticipatory bail.

5.13. Learned AAG further relied upon
the judgement of the Apex Court 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.

5.14. 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
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, Chairman, 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) Daud Massiah and Ratna
Massiah co-accused persons 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. to 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
3 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
525
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 filed against 44
accused persons on 27.1.2023.

5.15. 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 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 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.

5.16. 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.

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

7. The gravamen of the matter,
wherein the applicants before this Court are
for grant 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'.

8. 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.
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9.

Object
and
purposes
of
Anticipatory Bail are summarized as
under:

(i)
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. Therefore,
the power being `unusual and extraordinary
in nature' is entrusted only to the higher
echelons of judicial service, i.e. a Court of
Session and a High Court.

(ii) The conflict of judicial
opinion whether a High Court had inherent
powers to make an order of bail in
anticipation of arrest and the need to curb
the acts of, influential persons trying to
implicate their rivals in false cases for the
purpose of disgracing them or for other
purposes by getting them detained in jail
for some days were the necessities, carved
out by Law Commission of India in its 41st
Report to introduce provision relating to
Anticipatory bail.

(iii) As most things have a dark
side, so do this provision of the Code. The
object behind enacting this law was to
prevent the innocent from getting trapped,
but with time, the picture has changed and
now persons accused of heinous offences
and even habitual offenders are invoking it
repeatedly, which was not the intent of the
relief sought to be given by this section.

(iv) The Courts have felt that
wide discretionary power conferred by the
Legislature on the higher echelons in the
criminal justice delivery system cannot be
put in the form of strait-jacket rules for
universal application as the question
whether to grant bail or not depends, for its
answer upon a variety of circumstances, the
cumulative effect of which must enter into
the judicial verdict. A circumstance which,
in a given case, turns out to be conclusive
may or may not have any significance in
another case. Nonetheless, the discretion
under the Section has to be exercised with
due care and circumspection depending on
circumstances justifying its exercise.

(v) Section 438(1) of the Code
lays down a condition which has to be
satisfied before anticipatory bail can be
granted. The applicant must show that he
has reason to believe that he may be
arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use
of the expression "reason to believe" shows
that the belief that applicant may be so
arrested must be founded on reasonable
grounds. Mere fear is not belief, for this
reason, it is not enough for the applicant to
show that he has some sort of a vague
apprehension that someone is going to
make an accusation against him, in
pursuance of which he may be arrested.

(vi) It cannot be laid down as an
inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot
be granted unless the proposed accusation
appears to be actuated by mala fides; and
equally, that anticipatory bail must be
granted if there is no fear that the applicant
will abscond.' The nature and seriousness
of the proposed charges, the context of the
events likely to lead to the making of the
charges, a reasonable possibility of the
applicant's presence not being secured at
the trial, a reasonable apprehension, that
witnesses will be tampered with and the
larger interests of the public or the State,
are some of the considerations which the
court's keep in mind while deciding an
application for anticipatory bail.'

(vii)
In
evaluation
of
the
consideration whether the applicant is
likely to abscond, there can be no
3 All. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
527
presumption that the wealthy and the
mighty will submit themselves to trial and
that the humble and the poor will run away
from the course of justice, and more than
there can be a presumption that the former
are not likely to commit a crime and the
latter are more likely to commit it. In
considering a petition for grant of bail
necessarily, if public interest requires,
detention of citizen in custody for purpose
of investigation could be considered and
rejected, as otherwise, there could be
hurdles in investigation even resulting in
tempering of evidence.

(viii) The Apex Court has held
that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a
matter of right. It is essentially a statutory
right conferred long after the coming into
force of the Constitution and that it cannot
be considered as an essential ingredient of
Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore its
non-application
to
a
certain
special
category of offences cannot be considered
as violative of Article 21.

(ix) A duty has been thrust on the
courts, to examine the facts carefully and to
ensure that no prejudice is caused to
investigation. It is a delicate balance
whereby the liberty of citizen and the
operation of criminal justice system have
both
to
be
safeguarded.
Custodial
interrogation
of
such
accused
is
indispensable
necessary
for
the
investigating agency to unearth all the links
involved in the criminal conspiracies
committed by the persons which ultimately
led to capital tragedy.

(x) Where it is pointed out that
the action is malafide or tainted the courts
are required to reach out the conclusion and
do justice by preventing harassment and
unjustified detention. Specific events and
facts must be disclosed by the applicant in
order to enable the court to judge the
reasonableness of his belief, the existence
of which is the sine qua non of the exercise
of power conferred by the section.

(xi) But, while granting such
anticipatory bail, the Court may impose
such conditions as it thinks fit, but the
object of putting conditions should be to
avoid
the
possibility
of
the
person
hampering investigation. Harsh, onerous
and excessive conditions which frustrate
the very object of anticipatory bail cannot
to be imposed. Subjecting an accused to
any
condition
other
than
conditions
mentioned in the Section is beyond the
jurisdiction of the court.

(xii) Filing of F.I.R is not a
condition precedent to the exercise of the
power
under
Section
438
and
the
imminence of a likely arrest founded on a
reasonable belief can be shown to exist
even if an F.I.R. is not yet filed.
Anticipatory bail can be granted even after
an F.I.R. is filed, so long as the applicant
has not been arrested. The provision cannot
be invoked after the arrest of an accused.
Moreover the salutary provision contained
in Section 438 Cr.P.C. were introduced to
enable the Court to prevent the deprivation
of personal liberty. It cannot be permitted
to be jettisoned on technicalities such as the
challan having been presented anticipatory
bail cannot be granted.

10. 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.