[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Baljinder Singh Khosa vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5973) on 2 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:5973]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 881/2026
1. Shri Baljinder Singh Khosa S/o Shri Veer Singh, Aged
About 44 Years, R/o 16S, Currently Ward No. 24, Devtha
Colony, Srikaranpur, Sriganganagar,rajasthan - 335073.
(Lodged In Upkaaragraha Srikaranpur Jail)
2. Shri M.s. Matthew S/o Shri M.a. Sebastian, Aged About
67 Years, R/o Gokul Dham, Garh Road, Meerut, Uttar
Pradesh Currently Ward No. 4, Srikaranpur,
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan - 335073. (Lodged In
Upkaaragraha Srikaranpur Jail)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Raj. D.A.
Mr. Aneese Mohanraj
Mr. Chandan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
02/02/2026
1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioners
under Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in
connection with FIR No. 290/2025 dated 19.12.2025, registered at
Police Station Shri Karanpur, District Sriganganagar for the
offences under Section 223(b) of the BNS-2023, Sections 3 & 5 of
the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2025 ('RPUCR Act') and Section 14A of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 06:30:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5973] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-881/2026]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and false
allegations have been levelled against them. He further submits
that the complainant was not present at the time of the alleged
incident and the petitioners have been made accused solely on the
basis of assumptions. In the FIR, it has been alleged that the
petitioners were attending a gathering where foreign citizens were
present and the persons, who were present in the gathering, were
induced to change the religion and they were even offered certain
benefits. Not only this, they were preached to change their
religion and they were made to believe that the religion, they are
following, was not the religion which they should profess. Both
petitioners, as alleged in the FIR, were found to be involved in
such activities. The bail application submitted by the petitioners
before the Sessions court was rejected vide order dated
03.01.2026.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
petitioners have no criminal antecedents; petitioner No.2 is aged
67 years and is a principal in a school; complainant was not
present at the time of the alleged incident; petitioners are in
judicial custody since 23.12.2025; and the allegations levelled in
the FIR are purely based on assumption, whereas there is no
evidence that the petitioners were involved in religious conversion.
In view of the above submissions, the petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.
2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Moti Ram & Ors.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 06:30:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5973] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-881/2026]
vs. State of M.P. : (1978) 4 SCC 47 more particularly para 14
and contends that the bail should not be denied at pre-trial stage.
Furthermore, such incarceration may result in loosing the job of
the accused.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes
this bail application and submits that the investigation is not yet
concluded. The investigation so far made by the investigating
agency clearly indicates that petitioners are involved in forcing the
residents of the area to change their religion by inducing them to
do so under the garb of treating their disease. Furthermore, they
misguided them about the religion which they are professing and
forced them to change their religion. The fact that the incident
occurred in a remote place like Sriganganagar, which is neither a
tourist place nor there is any reason for some foreigners to be
present in the gathering on the date of incident, further indicates
the commission of the said offence. The alleged incident clearly
makes out a case under Sections 3 & 5 of the RPUCR Act. It is also
stated that during investigation certain books, which were 50 in
number, were also recovered and contents of these books also
established the fact that the gathering on the alleged date was for
the purpose of inducing these common citizens to change their
religion. The investigation also indicates that the institute is being
run by foreign citizens. The offences committed by the petitioners
are triable by the court of sessions.
Based on the above submissions, it is contended that till the
investigation is concluded, the petitioners may not be enlarged on
bail.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 06:30:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5973] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-881/2026]
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the judgment cited by
learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable in
every case as the grant of bail is considered on certain
parameters, which includes gravity of the alleged offences and the
prima facie involvement of the accused. The investigation is yet
to be concluded. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge
the petitioners on bail. However, the petitioners would be at liberty
to file fresh bail application after the conclusion of the
investigation.
6. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
72-Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 06:30:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
