1. Heard Sri Jaideep Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandra Vijai Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Prankaj Saxena, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 21 of 2026, under Sections 3, 5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, P.S. Bilari, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused/applicant has been falsely implicated in the FIR dated 22.01.2026 for the offences alleged under U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The FIR is lodged by the brother of victim against five named persons. The allegation in the FIR is that the victim, who is minor has been brain washed by the accused for conversion of her religion. She once forcefully provided Burka and she was continuously being pressurized for change of religion. The incident of wearing Burka is of 20.12.2025. The FIR is delayed. The applicant is co-student. The main allegation is levelled against one Aleena, who was already granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Further submits that the accused/applicant has no criminal history. She wants to cooperate in the investigation but apprehending arrest.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A.-I and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submits that there is specific statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, which shows that she is being pressurized for chance of religion. She has also stated about being brain washed. On the point of delay in the FIR, learned counsel submits that the victim was under influence of the accused/applicant. It is after much efforts, the informant to know about the sinister design of the accused/applicant and the FIR was lodged.

5. Countering the argument, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the accused/applicant was studying in Janta Inter College, prior to the victim, when the victim has taken admission. There is no other report of accused/applicant of pressuring any other girl for change of religion. Hence, submits that a false FIR is lodged.

6. Learned counsel for the informant has produced on the judgement of coordinate Bench of this Court in writ jurisdiction, which was dismissed by order dated 16.04.2026.

7. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is consistently held by Hon’ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk.

8. Considering this court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and is of the view that the accused/applicant has no criminal history. there is nothing on record other than the statement of victim to show the involvement of accused/applicant. Further submits this Court, while considering the gravity of accusation, explained criminal history and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail.

9. The applicant-Malishka @ Malishka Fatma involved in the aforesaid case crime shall