Allahabad High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Student Accused Under Anti-Conversion Law

By Legal News Correspondent Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a Muslim student, Malishka, also known as Malishka Fatma, who was accused of attempting to forcibly convert the religion of a Hindu classmate. The case highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny surrounding the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and underscores the legal standards required to establish allegations of forced religious conversion among young individuals.

Background of the Case
The criminal proceedings arose from a complaint filed by the brother of the alleged victim. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the complainant alleged that his sister was compelled to wear a burqa and coerced into accepting Islam by the accused along with four other students attending the same tuition centre. The allegations gained prominence after an outing in December 2025, where the accused purportedly tried to force the Hindu student to consume non-vegetarian food.

The matter previously reached the High Court when three of the accused students sought to quash the case, contending that the allegations were entirely false. The petitioners claimed that the complainant had been harassing one of the female students, and the FIR was filed as a counter-blast after a complaint was raised against his conduct. However, a Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, declined to quash the criminal case. In their order dated April 16, the Bench observed that allegations of forced religious conversion among young students remain a matter of deep concern and require thorough investigation.

Court’s Observations and Ruling
In the subsequent development, Justice Avnish Saxena heard the anticipatory bail plea filed on behalf of Malishka @ Malishka Fatma. The Court carefully reviewed the material on record and noted that, apart from the initial statement of the victim, there was no independent or corroborative evidence to establish the applicant’s active or specific involvement in the alleged offences.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicant possesses no prior criminal record, which served as a significant factor in her favor. Recognizing the presumption of innocence and the personal liberty of the accused at the pre-trial stage, the High Court directed her release on anticipatory bail.

Bail Conditions and Compliance
The High Court laid down the following conditions for the release of the accused:

• Personal Bond: The applicant must furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000.
• Sureties: Two sureties of the same amount must be provided to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.
• Judicial Cooperation: The applicant is required to appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer (IO) within thirty days from the date of the order.

Legal Implications and Context
The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, continues to be a subject of intense legal debate. Cases registered under this legislation frequently raise critical questions regarding personal liberty, freedom of conscience, and the evidentiary threshold required to prove coercion. Legal practitioners observe that the absence of corroborative evidence frequently plays a decisive role when courts consider the grant of anticipatory bail.

As the case proceeds to the trial phase, the defense is expected to challenge the veracity of the victim’s statement by emphasizing the counter-blast nature of the complaint. The court's decision reaffirms the foundational principle that personal liberty should not be curtailed without substantial material on record during the preliminary stages of the criminal process.

Discription: The Allahabad High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to Malishka, also known as Malishka Fatma, who was accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The case stems from a complaint alleging that the accused and others forced a Hindu classmate to wear a burqa and coerced her into accepting Islam during a December 2025 outing.
Justice Avnish Saxena granted the relief, noting a lack of corroborative material beyond the victim’s statement and highlighting the applicant’s clean criminal record. The Court required a personal bond of ₹25,000 and two sureties, mandating her appearance before the investigating authorities.

Legal Implications

• Evidentiary Threshold: Clarifies that denying bail requires specific corroborative evidence beyond oral testimonies.
• Personal Liberty: Upholds Article 21, protecting accused individuals from pre-trial incarceration without overt acts.
• Counter-blast Defense: Recognizes retaliatory potential in social disputes, ensuring fairness.