Allahabad High Court

order dated 11.3.2025 the trial court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 326, 120-B IPC, 75/80 Juvenile Justice Act and 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition o f Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and in the same offence present anticipatory bail application has been moved.

2. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Smt. Babli in case crime no. 718 of 2022, under Sections 323, 326, 120-B IPC, 75/80 Juvenile Justice Act and 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared absconder. It is further 2 NABAIL No. 7199 of 2025 submitted that earlier the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 16.9.2022 till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC and the said protection has not been misused by her and she has been cooperative to the I.O. during investigationIn case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Earlier, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 16.9.2022 till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC and the said protection has not been misused by her and she has been cooperative to the I.O. during investigation. Now charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. Statement of the present applicant has already been recorded by the I.O. and now there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant in the matter.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that considering application 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 evidence including intimidating witnesses, 3 NABAIL No. 7199 of 2025 likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that 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.

8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

12. So far as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non- bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because 4 NABAIL No. 7199 of 2025 charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make herself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial. (ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 10, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

order dated 11.3.2025 the trial court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 326, 120-B IPC, 75/80 Juvenile Justice Act and 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition o f Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and in the same offence present anticipatory bail application has been moved.

2. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Smt. Babli in case crime no. 718 of 2022, under Sections 323, 326, 120-B IPC, 75/80 Juvenile Justice Act and 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared absconder. It is further 2 NABAIL No. 7199 of 2025 submitted that earlier the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 16.9.2022 till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC and the said protection has not been misused by her and she has been cooperative to the I.O. during investigationIn case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Earlier, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 16.9.2022 till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC and the said protection has not been misused by her and she has been cooperative to the I.O. during investigation. Now charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. Statement of the present applicant has already been recorded by the I.O. and now there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant in the matter.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that considering application 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 evidence including intimidating witnesses, 3 NABAIL No. 7199 of 2025 likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that 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.

8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

12. So far as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non- bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because 4 NABAIL No. 7199 of 2025 charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make herself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial. (ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 10, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)