Allahabad High Court
Saniya Begam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 6 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13851
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 105 of 2025
Applicant :- Saniya Begam
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Vikram Singh,Syed Mehfuzur Rehman
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed today by counsel for the State and rejoinder affidavit filed today by counsel for the applicant are taken on record.
Heard counsel for the applicant, counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application under section 482 BNSS has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0282 of 2024, under sections 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 Police Station- Ashiyana District- Lucknow.
As per the prosecution story, the complainant is a widow and has a daughter of 10 years and son of 4 years and she developed friendship with one Zainul through social media and she has developed physical relations with him since last four years several times in a rented property on a false pretext of marriage. It is further alleged that when the informant called on telephone to the complainant, the co-accusedZainul came to her house and refused to marry her and threatened her. Further allegation is thatZainul used to have bad eye on the daughter of the complainant aged about 10 years and used to touch her. It is also alleged that the owner of the house/present applicant has promised that she would got solemnized the marriage of the informant withZainul, the co-accused.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is a woman and she always cooperated with the investigation proceedings and the chargesheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required.
He argued that the main allegation is against oneZainul and the instant first information report has been lodged against the applicant when she served a legal notice on 16.07.2024 upon the informant for payment of rent, through registered post. The present first information report is in-retaliation to the aforesaid legal notice and this is lodged on 09.08.2024. He also added that there was a rent agreement in between the applicant and the informant dated 16.03.2023 and when the rent was not being paid, the aforesaid legal notice was served and being annoyed, the first information report has been lodged and an allegation is leveled against him that the applicant had accorded false promise for getting solemnized the marriage of the informant with the co-accusedZainul. He submitted that all the allegations are againstZainul and the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role ofZainul. He submits that Zainul has already been enlarged on regular bail. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in case of Maulvi Syed shad Kazmi Vs. The State of U.P. in Special Leave to Appeal Crl No. 1059 of 2025 dated 27.01.2025 and has referred paragraph nos. 10 to 12. Paragraph nos. 10, 11 and 12 are quoted hereinunder:-
"10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the High Court should have exercised its discretion by granting bail to the petitioner. There was no good reason for the High Court to decline bail. The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape etc.
11. We can understand that the trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail, be it any offence. However, at least, it was expected of the High Court to SLP(Crl.) No. 1059/2025 muster the courage and exercise its discretion judiciously.
12. We are conscious of the fact that grant of bail is a matter of discretion. But discretion has to be exercised judicially keeping in mind the well settled principles of grant of bail. Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious. The petitioner is going to be put to trial and ultimately if the prosecution succeeds in establishing its case, he would be punished."
Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it has been held by the Apex Court that the conversion is something very serious whereas, the applicant would be subsequently, put to trial and ultimately, the prosecution succeeds in establishing the case, he would be punished.
He argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and there is no compliant that the applicant has never absconded from the investigation proceedings and the chargesheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required. He also submits that the applicant is always ready to cooperate in the trail proceedings; furthet, she undertakes that she will always remains present before the Investigating Officer as and when required in this matter, thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid, vehemently and submits that the applicant is involved with the co-accused Zainul for committing offence and she is named in the first information report. He added that though, the informant is the tenant of the applicant, but she did not sign the rent agreement dated 16.03.2023 as is stated in the bail application. He next added that so far as the unlawful religious conversion is concerned, the applicant is also involved in the same and therefore, after thorough investigation, the chargesheet has been filed against her, thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.
Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has supported the version of counsel for the complainant and submits that there are serious charges against the applicant and it was found that she is involved in committing the offence thus, she is not entitled for any relief.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the present applicant is a woman and the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of co-accusedZainul; This Court finds that the only allegation against the applicant is that she promised the informant that she will manage to get marry the informant to the co-accused Zainul and she failed to do show, but primafacie, this allegation does not into purview of any offence.
It is alsonoticeable that the first information report has been lodged on 09.08.2024 whereas, the records, which are appended alongwith the anticipatory bail application and the rejoinder affidavit are apparent that a legal notice was sent by the present applicant on 16.07.2024 through registered post as the rent was not being paid by the informant and it seems that in-retaliation thereof, the first information report has been lodged. Further, the chargesheet has been filed and there is no complaint that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation proceedings and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and she has undertaken that she will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the instant regular anticipatory bail is hereby allowed while granting bail to the applicant namely,Saniya Begam till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions :-
(i) that the applicant shall make herself 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'
(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this protection.
Order Date :- 6.3.2025
Mayank
