Religious Conversion Case: Allahabad HC Grants Bail to 8 Convicts, Rejects Bail Pleas of Umar Gautam, Kaleem Siddiqui

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has granted post-conviction bail to eight persons convicted in the alleged illegal mass religious conversion case, while rejecting the bail applications of eight others, including alleged masterminds Mohd. Umar Gautam and Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui.

A division bench of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra passed the common order on November 4 while deciding bail applications filed in 16 criminal appeals challenging the September 11, 2024 judgment of the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency (NIA), Lucknow.

The eight convicts granted bail are Mannu Yadav, Abdullah Umar, Dheeraj Govindrao Jagtap, Bhoopriya Bando alias Arslan Mustafa, Sarfaraz Ali Jafri, Mohd. Saleem, Kunal Ashok Chaudhari alias Atif and Rahul Bhola.

Court rejected the bail applications of Umar Gautam, Siddiqui, Mufti Qazi Jhangeer Qasmi, Sallahuddin Jainuddin Sheikh, Prasad Rameshwar Kawre alias Adam, Irfan Shaikh, Kauser Alam and Dr. Faraz Babullah Shah.

Court noted that the allegations and supporting evidence against the eight convicts denied bail were of a very serious nature. In contrast, the allegations and nature of evidence against the other appellants, described as associates of the principal accused, were comparatively on the lighter side.

"Therefore, we do not find any plausible reason to enlarge them on bail at post conviction stage in the present criminal appeal," the court said while rejecting the applications of the eight convicts.

The bench, however, held that the remaining eight deserved bail after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, their individual roles and the evidence relating to the overt acts attributed to them.

Court specifically noted that Mohd. Saleem, Rahul Bhola, Mannu Yadav and Kunal Ashok Chaudhari alias Atif had not been convicted under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Section 148 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS)], which deals with conspiracy to commit offences punishable under Section 121(Section 147 BNS) or to overawe the government through criminal force or its show.

The appellants had argued that the trial court's judgment was based on conjectures, presumptions and substantial reproduction of material from the case diary. They also questioned the legality of the FIR, which was lodged by an ATS sub-inspector, arguing that the unamended Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 permitted only an aggrieved person or their specified relatives to lodge an FIR for an offence under Section 3.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the defence argued that the FIR and subsequent proceedings were vitiated. It argued that the FIR in the present case was legally defective because it had been lodged by a police officer rather than an aggrieved person or their specified relative, as required under the unamended Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The counsel for convicts also questioned the applicability of Section 121A IPC, the admissibility of alleged police confessions and the prosecution's reliance on electronic evidence.

The State opposed the applications, submitting that the convictions were supported by oral, documentary and digital evidence, including the testimony of 24 prosecution witnesses. It alleged that the accused had targeted vulnerable sections, including women, children and persons with disabilities, for religious conversion through inducements, coercion and misrepresentation.

The prosecution also relied on financial transactions, WhatsApp communications, audio-video recordings and forensic voice-matching reports to establish the alleged network and the individual roles attributed to the accused.

The case arose from four connected trials registered in connection with Case Crime No. 9 of 2021 at the ATS police station in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The trial court had convicted the 16 accused under various provisions of the IPC, the 2021 anti-conversion law and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.

Umar Gautam and Abdullah Umar were sentenced to life imprisonment as the maximum sentence. Mannu Yadav, Mohd. Saleem, Kunal Chaudhari and Rahul Bhola were awarded a maximum sentence of 10 years, while the remaining accused were also sentenced to life imprisonment as the maximum sentence.

The eight convicts granted bail have been directed to deposit their passports, if issued, before the trial court and cooperate with the hearing of their appeals. They cannot leave the country without the high court's permission or indulge in similar criminal activities. The prosecution can seek cancellation of their bail in case of violation of these conditions.

Court further directed them to deposit 50% of the total fine imposed by the trial court within two months of their release. The remaining 50% has been stayed. Failure to deposit the stipulated amount will result in cancellation of bail and their return to jail to serve their sentences.

The bench directed that the trial court records be summoned, if not already received, and the appeals be listed for hearing in the first week of January 2027.

Case Title: Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif v. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home

Order Date: November 4, 2026

Bench: Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra