Safiq Ahmad and another v. State of U.P.)
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36682 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9674 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- Safiq Ahmad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Neeraj Kumar Srivastava,Sunil Prakash Anand Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10559 of 2024 Appellant :- Rafiq Ahmad @ Paggal Baba Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Neeraj Kumar Srivastava,Sunil Prakash Anand Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 809 of 2025 Appellant :- Farid Ahmad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Tewari,Vinay Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 / informant even in the revised call. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 3. The above three connected Criminal Appeals under Section 14- A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants - Safiq Ahmad, Rafiq Ahmad @ Paggal Baba and Farid Ahmad with the prayer to allow the appeals and set aside the bail rejection orders dated 30.07.2024 (Safiq Ahmad and another Vs. State of U.P.), 13.09.2024 (Rafiq Ahmad @ Paggal Baba Vs. State of U.P.) and 30.07.2024 (Safiq Ahmad and another Vs. State of U.P.) passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No.0146 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3, 5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act and Section 3 (1) द, ध of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad.
Decision
4. Since all three connected criminal appeals arise out of same crime number and relate to the same controversy, they are being disposed of by a common order. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Nirmala Saket, the member of the weaker section of the Society and belongs to S.C./S.T. Community, was enticed away by accused appellant Rafiq Ahmad @ Paggal Baba from her house and under her protest, her name was changed as Ayesha and the said Rafiq Ahmad @ Paggal Baba and his two sons Safiq Ahmad and Farid Ahmad used to pressurize her for conversion to Islam religion and she was also assaulted, abused and threatened when she denied to do so. With these allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged on 22.4.2024 at Police Station Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj and ultimately charge- sheet was submitted in the matter against Rafiq Ahmad @ Paggal Baba and his two sons Safiq Ahmad and Farid Ahmad. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the S.C./S.T. Act are lacking in this matter, therefore no case under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the appellants. It is also submitted that the story setup by the prosecution against the appellants is neither plausible nor natural. The evidence collected by the Investigating Officer shows that the informant was a married lady who at her own free will left her family and came alongwith the appellant Rafiq Ahmad. It is also submitted that the name of the informant is Smt. Ayesha and her aadhar card and other relevant public papers also show the same like income certificate, bank passbook etc. It is also submitted that none of the appellants made any attempt for the conversion of the informant to other religion. She was living with the appellant Rafiq Ahmad out of her own free will since 2009 and she never made any protest or complaint for the same. The prosecution evidence is not reliable and consistent in respect of the allegations made in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the appellants are having no criminal history to their credit. Appellants Safiq Ahmad and Rafiq Ahmad are languishing in jail since 4.5.2024 whereas appellant Farid Ahmad is in jail since 22.4.2024. It is also submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act was come into existence in the year 2021 whereas the offence in the instant matter is said to have been committed in the year 2009. The appellants had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. It is also submitted that the learned Special Court without considering the evidence on record in proper and legal manner, rejected the bail applications of the appellants without any cogent reason. It is further submitted that the court concerned while passing the impugned orders did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present appeal and it is submitted that the appellant Rafiq Ahmad @ Paggal Baba is involved in tantric practices and under his influence, for the welfare of her family members, the informant came to him and he kept her with him and took her to his own village and after performing some rituals told her that now she was a muslim lady and her name was also changed from Nirmala to Ayesha. It is also submitted that repeated efforts were made by the accused appellants for her conversion and when it was protested by her, she was beaten and threatened for dire consequences and on 6.4.2024 they again forcibly performed some religious ceremonies in connection with her conversion to Islam religion. It is also submitted that under pressure of appellant Rafiq Ahmad, the poor lady could not do anything against the appellants but when on 19.4.2024 accused appellant Safiq Ahmad tried to hit her with a danda on road, she took shelter in a shop and was saved by the shopkeepers and then F.I.R. was lodged. The offence of the accused appellants is very serious and henious. Informant is a married lady having her own family. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the bail rejection orders carefully. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made by the parties, nature of offence, complicity of accused and looking to the nature of activities under reference and taking into account the fact that the informant of this case was a married lady who was enticed away by appellant Rafiq Ahmad and then he alongwith his two sons namely, Safiq Ahmad and Farid Ahmad, the co-appellants kept the informant in their house and they were regularly trying to convert her to muslim religion and she was also tortured and beaten for that by the appellants whereas she had her own family and she was a member of marginal section of the Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community and ample evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer against the present accused appellants as well and their active participation in the commission of the crime has come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, this Court finds that no ground is made out to allow the appeals, set-aside the anticipatory bail rejection orders and release the accused appellants on bail. 10. Accordingly, all the above three appeals are dismissed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad