Burqa, ‘Brainwashing’ Allegations: Allahabad High Court Grants Pre-arrest Bail To Student In Conversion Case

The Allahabad High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a student accused in an illegal religious conversion case involving her schoolmate.

According to the FIR lodged on January 22 this year by the victim’s brother, the minor girl had allegedly been “brainwashed” by the accused persons and pressured to convert her religion. The complaint alleged that she had once been made to wear a burqa and was continuously influenced to change her faith.

The bench of Justice Avnish Saxena passed the order on an anticipatory bail plea moved by Malishka @ Malishka Fatma in connection with a case registered at Bilari police station in Moradabad under Sections 3 and 5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Counsel appearing for the accused student argued that she had been falsely implicated in the case and that the FIR was lodged with delay. It was submitted that the applicant and the victim were co-students and that the principal allegations in the matter were against another accused, Aleena, who had already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench of the high court.

The counsel further argued that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and there was no allegation of her having similarly influenced any other girl. The applicant, the court was told, was ready to cooperate with the investigation but apprehended arrest.

Opposing the plea, the State as well as counsel for the informant relied on the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. They argued that the victim had specifically stated that she was being pressured to change her religion and had been subjected to “brainwashing”.

On the issue of delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecution contended that the victim remained under the influence of the accused persons and that the family became aware of the alleged conduct only later.

During the hearing, court also took note of the settled principles governing anticipatory bail laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab (1980), Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v State of Maharashtra (2011) and Sushila Aggarwal v State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020). The judgments emphasise that while considering anticipatory bail, courts must assess factors such as the gravity of allegations, criminal history, possibility of false implication, requirement of custodial interrogation and likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.

After considering the rival submissions, court noted that the applicant did not have any criminal history and observed that there was “nothing on record other than the statement of victim” to indicate her involvement in the alleged offence. Court also considered the applicant’s assurance that she would cooperate with the investigation and trial proceedings.

Allowing the plea, court directed that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 along with two sureties of the like amount.

Court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant shall not influence witnesses, tamper with evidence or seek unnecessary adjournments during trial. She has also been directed to remain present before the trial court on crucial dates, including opening of the case, framing of charges and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS.

Court further directed that if a charge sheet is filed and cognisance taken, the applicant must appear before the trial court within 60 days without waiting for summons so that the trial is not delayed. It also issued administrative directions to district courts for maintaining records of anticipatory bail orders passed by the high court.

Case Title: Malishka @ Malishka Fatma vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: May 4, 2026

Bench: Justice Avnish Saxena