Officials Seeking Brownie Points : Allahabad High Court Awards ₹50K Compensation To Man Jailed For 1.5 Months Over 'False' Anti-Conversion Law FIR

A Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani also ordered the immediate release of the petitioner no. 1 (Umed @ Ubaid Kha) and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay him ₹50,000 noting that he has been languishing in jail since September 18 for no fault of his.

The state has further been ordered to pay an additional amount of ₹25,000 to be deposited with the Legal Aid Services of the Court.

Briefly put, 5 petitioners approached the Court seeking quashing of the FIR lodged oo September 13, 2025 under Sections 140(1), 316(2), 317(2) BNS and Section 3(1)(5) UP Anti-Conversion Law.

According to the FIR, the complainant (respondent no.4) alleged that his wife ('VV') had gone missing with jewelry and cash at the instigation of the petitioners who are engaged in religious conversion. The petitioners were also accused of running a gang involved in conversions.

Now, as soon as VV (wife of the respondent no.4) came to know about the said FIR and seeing the frivolous and false nature of the FIR, she returned on her own accord along with jewelry. Though initially, under coercion and threat, she supported the FIR allegations, she later denied the allegations.

On September 19, in her statements under S. 183 BNS, she categorically stated that she had gone from her house on her own accord as her husband beats her regularly and she also denied the allegations regarding religious conversion.

Importantly, before the HC as well, she refuted the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioners.

HC's observations and order

The Bench noted that VV's subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS made the situation unambiguous that she had travelled alone to Delhi, stayed there and later returned voluntarily.

Taking note of this, the Bench observed:

"From the statement of the respondent No.5 dated 19.09.2025, it is apparent that she has stated to have gone on her own accord...and thus, the offence as per Section 140 of B.N.S., 2023 is clearly not made out".

The Court also noted that offences under Sections 316(2) and 317(2) (criminal breach of trust and stolen property) did not warrant automatic arrest under the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case as these offences only entail a sentence of five years and three years respectively.

Despite these facts, the Court observed, petitioner no.1 was arrested on September 18 and continued to remain in custody, even though the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS, recorded the very next day, completely falsified the FIR.

Thus, expressing astonishment at the conduct of the authorities, the Bench remarked that after the victim (VV's) clear statement, the investigating officer should have exercised powers under Section 189 of the BNSS (Release of accused when evidence deficient) to release the accused for want of evidence.

"However, the said course of action was also not resorted to by the authorities for reasons best known and the petitioner No.1 is continuing to languish in jail even at the time of dictating of this order", the Court noted.

The Bench emphasized that despite the victim's categorical denial of any conversion or abduction and the subsequent recovery of the jewellery there was no reasonable ground existing for the continuing prosecution of the accused no. 1. The FIR, the Court held, was false and vexatious.

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1021 to note that when proceedings are found to be an abuse of process, courts are not only empowered but also obligated to quash them.

"…despite having the statement of respondent No.5 as recorded on 19.09.2025, the authorities have failed to exercise the power as vested in them under Section 189 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and have failed to take corrective action with regard to the petitioner No.1 who, despite a lapse of almost one and a half months from the statement dated 19.09.2025, continues to languish in jail", the Court noted.

Against this backdrop, terming the petitioner's incarceration as illegal, the Bench drew parallels with the Supreme Court's judgment in Dr. Rini Johar & Anr. vs State Of MP & Ors 2016, where Rs. 5 Lakhs each were granted as compensation for illegal detention to two persons.

"Instant case is also on similar footing…despite the victim's statement totally falsifying the FIR, the respondent authorities did not deem it fit to take any corrective action. This thus compels this Court to award exemplary cost of Rs.75,000/- on the State of Uttar Pradesh", the Court remarked.

The division bench has provided that of this amount, ₹50K is to be paid to the petitioner within four weeks and ₹25K is to be deposited with the Court's Legal Aid Services.

The State has also been given liberty to proceed against the erring officials including the complainant (respondent no.4).

Thus, allowing the writ petition, the quashed the FIR lodged by opposite party no.4 and directed that petitioner no.1 shall be immediately released.