The Allahabad High Court has refused post-conviction bail to Kaleem Siddiqui, Umar Gautam and six other convicts in the 2021 unlawful religious conversion case, calling the charges against them “very serious in nature”, while granting bail to eight co-convicts whose role it found comparatively lighter.
Lucknow: Eight convicts in the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorism Squad’s 2021 unlawful conversion case have been granted bail pending their criminal appeals by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which refused the same relief to eight others, including Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui and Mohd. Umar Gautam [Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif v. State of U.P. and connected appeals].
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra formed the Division Bench that passed the common order on November 4, 2026, on bail applications filed in the connected criminal appeals. The order had been reserved on October 27, 2026.
Where the Bench drew the line
The Bench noted that the appellants had spent more than four years and six months in custody during trial and after conviction. Distinguishing between them, it said:
“On perusal of seriousness of allegations and supporting evidence adduced during trial and inference of learned trial court thereon, we find that we are of the considered opinion that the charges against the appellants, namely, (1) Mohd. Umar Gautam, (2) Mufti Qazi Jhangeer Qasmi, (3) Sallahuddin Jainuddin Sheikh, (4) Prasad Rameshwar Kawre @ Adam, (5) Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui, (6) Irfan Shaikh @ Irfan Shaikh, (7) Kauser Alam and (8) Dr. Faraz Babullah Shah are of very serious in nature.”
For the other appellants, described as associates, the Court said the allegations and evidence were “compartively on lighter side”. It found no plausible reason to release the eight principal appellants at the post-conviction stage.
Who gets bail, and on what terms
Bail was granted to Mannu Yadav, Abdullah Umar, Dheeraj Govindrao Jagtap, Bhoopriya Bando @ Arslan Mustafa, Sarfaraz Ali Jafri, Mohd. Saleem, Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif and Rahul Bhola, on a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to these conditions:
- They must deposit their passports, if not already deposited, before the trial court.
- They must cooperate in the hearing of the appeal and not seek adjournments on insufficient grounds.
- They must not leave the country without the High Court’s permission.
- They must not indulge in similar criminal activities while on bail.
Each of them must deposit 50 per cent of the fine imposed by the trial court within two months of release, with the remaining 50 per cent stayed. If the deposit is not made in time, bail will stand cancelled and they will be sent back to jail to serve the sentence. The prosecution is free to seek cancellation if any condition is breached.
The convictions under appeal
The appeals challenge the common judgment of September 11, 2024 passed by the Special Judge, NIA, Lucknow in four connected sessions trials arising out of Case Crime No. 09 of 2021 at Police Station ATS, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The FIR was lodged on June 20, 2021 by an ATS Sub Inspector against Mohd. Umar Gautam and Mufti Qazi Jhangeer Qasmi.
According to the prosecution, the accused ran an organised operation to convert people, including deaf and mute students, women, children and persons from weaker sections, through allurement and misrepresentation, with funding from Indian and foreign sources. The trial ended in convictions under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 120B, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298 and 417, Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.
As recorded in the High Court’s order, Umar Gautam and his son Abdullah Umar were sentenced to imprisonment for life as the maximum sentence. Ten other appellants, including Kaleem Siddiqui, were also convicted under Sections 121A and 123 IPC and given life imprisonment as the maximum sentence. Four appellants, Mannu Yadav, Mohd. Saleem, Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif and Rahul Bhola, were not convicted under Section 121A and received a maximum of 10 years.
What each side told the Bench
Senior Advocate Purnendu Chakraborty, appearing for Kunal Ashok Chaudhari, argued that the trial court’s judgment rested on conjecture and surmises and largely reproduced material from the case diary. He submitted that no charge under Section 121A IPC, which deals with conspiracy to commit offences against the State, was made out against any appellant, though eight of them had been convicted under it. Other counsel appeared for the remaining appellants and pressed for bail during the pendency of the appeals.
Additional Advocate General Vinod Kumar Shahi, assisted by AGA S.N. Tilhari, opposed the bail pleas. The order sets out the specific roles the trial court attributed to each appellant on the basis of the evidence, including alleged funding through trusts and bank accounts, audio and video recordings matched by forensic laboratories, and the organisation of conversion programmes.
Appeals to be heard in January
The Court directed that the trial court records be summoned, if not already done, and that paper books be prepared. The appeals are listed for hearing in the first week of January 2027. The bail order does not decide the appeals, in which the appellants have challenged their convictions on the merits.
Why the order matters
Once a trial court has convicted an accused, the presumption of innocence no longer operates in the same way, and an appellate court weighing suspension of sentence looks at the gravity of the offence, the evidence relied on, the sentence and the time already spent in custody. The order shows a court drawing distinctions within a single set of convictions, separating those it treated as principal actors from those it saw as associates with a lesser role.
The order also carries a practical lesson on long-pending criminal appeals. With convicts having spent over four and a half years in custody, the Court granted relief to some and fixed a hearing date for the appeals themselves. Whether the convictions, including those under Section 121A IPC that the defence has questioned, are sustained will be decided only when the appeals are heard on the merits.
Case Title: Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow, with connected criminal appeals
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4008 of 2024 and connected Criminal Appeals (C.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 in each)
Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Date of Order: November 4, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Purnendu Chakraborty with Advocate Krishan Kumar, and Advocates Furkan Pathan, Zia Ul Qayum, Sushil Kumar Singh, Abhishek Singh, Mohemmed Amir Naqvi and Indu Prakash Singh for the appellants; Additional Advocate General Vinod Kumar Shahi with AGA S.N. Tilhari for the State
