The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has granted bail to eight convicts in the UP illegal conversion case, while rejecting the bail pleas of eight others, including Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui and Mohd. Umar Gautam. The Court found that the charges against the eight were very serious. It said the case against the remaining appellants, described as their associates, was “comparatively” on the lighter side.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra decided the bail applications in sixteen connected criminal appeals by a common order.
Background of the case
The appeals challenge the judgment dated September 11, 2024, of the Special Judge, NIA, UP, Lucknow. That judgment decided four connected Sessions Trials arising out of Case Crime No. 09 of 2021, Police Station ATS, Gomtinagar, Lucknow.
The FIR was lodged on June 20, 2021, by an ATS Sub-Inspector. It alleged large-scale conversion of deaf and mute persons, women, children and people from weaker sections to Islam through allurement and foreign funding. The charges included Sections 120B, 153A, 153B, 295A, 417, 298, 121A and 123 IPC, Sections 3/5/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and Section 11/35 of the FCRA, 2010.
The trial court sentenced Mohd. Umar Gautam, Abdullah Umar and the ten appellants convicted under Section 121A IPC to life imprisonment as the maximum sentence. Mannu Yadav, Mohd. Saleem, Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif and Rahul Bhola were not convicted under Section 121A IPC. They received a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Arguments for the appellants
Senior Advocate Purnendu Chakraborty, assisted by Advocate Krishan Kumar, appeared for Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif. He argued that there was no material to support a charge under Section 121A IPC against any appellant. He said the FIR did not mention a date or time of the incident, so it could not be established that the acts were committed after the conversion law came into force. He also argued that under the unamended Section 4 of the Act, only an aggrieved person or a close relative could lodge an FIR, not a police officer. He added that confessional statements made in police custody were hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
Advocate Sushil Kumar Singh appeared for Bhoopriya Bando @ Arslan Mustafa, Mohd. Umar Gautam, Prasad Rameshwar Kawre @ Adam and Sallahuddin Jainuddin Sheikh. He relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of UP, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1021. He contended that an FIR lodged by an incompetent person vitiated all subsequent proceedings. Citing State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, he submitted that Section 121A IPC was attracted in cases like the Parliament attack, unlike the present case, where conversion is chiefly involved.
Advocate Indu Prakash Singh, appearing for Abdullah Umar, said the appellant was an MBA student falsely implicated because he is the son of Mohd. Umar Gautam. He argued there was no evidence linking him to any conversion.
Other counsel concurred with these submissions. They included Advocate Furkan Pathan for Irfan Shaikh and Mufti Qazi Jhangeer Qasmi, Advocate Zia Ul Qayum for Mannu Yadav and Rahul Bhola, Advocate Abhishek Singh for Kauser Alam and Dheeraj Govindrao Jagtap, and Advocate Mohemmed Amir Naqvi for Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui, Mohd. Saleem and Sarfaraz Ali Jafri. They submitted that the appellants had not misused bail during the trial and had undergone between 4 years 7 months and 4 years 11 months in custody.
State’s opposition
Additional Advocate General Vinod Kumar Shahi, assisted by AGA S.N. Tilhari, opposed bail. He said the guilt was proved by 24 witnesses and by documentary and digital evidence, all set out in a judgment running over 265 pages.
He submitted that Section 4 applies to offences under Section 3 of the Act and not to Section 8. He also pointed out that the FIR and charge sheet were never challenged. He relied on Section 465 CrPC to argue that any such defect was only an irregularity. On Section 121A IPC, he argued that the provision covers a conspiracy to overawe the government and that actual use of force is not necessary.
Court’s findings
The Court took into account that the appellants had undergone more than 4 years 6 months of imprisonment. It noted that Mohd. Saleem, Rahul Bhola, Mannu Yadav and Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif were not convicted under Section 121A IPC.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence, the Bench held that the charges against Mohd. Umar Gautam, Mufti Qazi Jhangeer Qasmi, Sallahuddin Jainuddin Sheikh, Prasad Rameshwar Kawre @ Adam, Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui, Irfan Shaikh, Kauser Alam and Dr. Faraz Babullah Shah were very serious in nature. The Court observed:
“Allegations and nature of evidence in respect of offences in question is compartively on lighter side in respect of other accused persons, who are said to be their associates and were connected with them.”
As to the eight, the Bench said: “we do not find any plausible reason to enlarge them on bail at post conviction stage in the present criminal appeal.”
Outcome
The Court granted bail to Mannu Yadav, Abdullah Umar, Dheeraj Govindrao Jagtap, Bhoopriya Bando @ Arslan Mustafa, Sarfaraz Ali Jafri, Mohd. Saleem, Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif and Rahul Bhola. Each must furnish a personal bond and two sureties.
They must deposit their passports and cooperate in the hearing of the appeal. They cannot leave the country without the Court’s permission or indulge in similar activities. They must also deposit 50% of the fine within two months of release, with the remaining 50% stayed. If they fail to deposit it, their bail will stand cancelled.
The Court rejected the bail pleas of the other eight appellants. It directed that the trial court records be summoned and listed the appeals for hearing in the first week of January 2027.
Case Title: Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif v. State of U.P. and connected appeals
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4008 of 2024
Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
Date: November 4, 2026
