The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, on November 4, 2026, delivered a split verdict regarding the post-conviction bail applications of sixteen individuals convicted in connection with the 2021 illegal religious conversion case. A division bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra granted bail to eight of the appellants while explicitly rejecting the applications of eight primary convicts, including Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui and Mohd. Umar Gautam. The order, which followed the reservation of judgment on October 27, 2026, concerns the common conviction rendered by the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, in September 2024.

The court, after meticulously examining the material on record and the submissions made by the parties, distinguished between the roles of the various appellants . The bench observed that the charges leveled against Mohd. Umar Gautam, Mufti Qazi Jhangeer Qasmi, Sallahuddin Jainuddin Sheikh, Prasad Rameshwar Kawre, Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui, Irfan Shaikh, Kauser Alam, and Dr. Faraz Babullah Shah were of a highly serious nature, warranting continued detention post-conviction. In its assessment, the court noted that "the charges against the appellants ... are of very serious in nature," preventing the court from granting relief at this stage of the criminal appeal .

In contrast, the court found the allegations and supporting evidence against the remaining eight appellants—Mannu Yadav, Abdullah Umar, Dheeraj Govindrao Jagtap, Bhoopriya Bando, Sarfaraz Ali Jafri, Mohd. Saleem, Kunal Ashok Chaudhari, and Rahul Bhola—to be "comparatively on lighter side." Acknowledging that these individuals had already spent over four years and six months in custody, the court concluded that they were entitled to bail pending the final disposal of their respective appeals.

The legal proceedings originated from an First Information Report lodged by a Sub-Inspector of the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) on June 20, 2021. The prosecution alleged that the accused operated an organized syndicate aimed at converting gullible individuals, particularly those from weaker sections, women, children, and deaf and mute students, through allurement, coercion, and misrepresentation. The investigation focused on funding channels linked to the Islamic Dawah Centre, which the state argued were utilized to promote a specific agenda aimed at altering the country's demographic structure.

During the arguments, the defense counsel, including Senior Advocate Purnendu Chakraborty, challenged the validity of the convictions, specifically arguing that the evidence was largely based on conjecture and material taken from case diaries. A primary point of contention was the application of Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with conspiracy to wage war against the government. Defense counsel submitted that the ingredients for this offense, such as the use of criminal force or show of force to overawe the state, were entirely absent. They further questioned the locus standi of the police officer who initiated the FIR under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, prior to its amendment, suggesting that only an aggrieved person or a close relative possessed such standing.

The state, represented by Additional Advocate General Vinod Kumar Shahi , robustly defended the trial court’s judgment, pointing to a 265-page order supported by oral, documentary, and digital evidence. The state highlighted forensic reports of voice samples, call data records, and recovered literature as proof of a "jihadi mindset" among the accused. The court’s order referenced that "large scale of conversion of people professing Hindu religion to Islam by means of fraud, misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement with jihadi mindset" was supported by evidence including WhatsApp chats and audio clips retrieved from the mobile devices of the accused.

The bail granted to the eight successful appellants is subject to stringent conditions. Each individual must furnish a personal bond and two sureties of equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Additionally, they are required to deposit their passports, refrain from leaving the country without judicial permission, and cooperate fully with the ongoing appeal proceedings. The bench also mandated that they must refrain from engaging in similar activities while on bail. A significant financial condition requires these appellants to deposit 50% of the fine imposed by the trial court within two months of their release. Failure to comply with this timeline will result in the automatic cancellation of the bail order, and the appellants will be remanded back to judicial custody.

This order effectively narrows the scope of the appellate inquiry to the merits of the conviction. The court has directed the summoning of trial court records and the preparation of paper books, with the final hearing of the criminal appeals scheduled for the first week of January 2027. While the eight appellants granted bail will remain at liberty during the pendency of the appeal, the primary convicts must remain incarcerated, their legal challenges continuing alongside the ongoing judicial scrutiny of the broader conversion racket allegations. The court’s distinction between the "masterminds" and their "associates" marks a significant procedural development in a case that has remained a central point of debate regarding the scope of state conversion laws and constitutional religious freedoms.