Regular bail granted for conversion and abduction offences following charge-sheet filing and lack of antecedents.

The applicants filed their first bail application following their arrest for alleged forced religious conversion, abduction, and sexual harassment.

The complainant alleged that Applicant No. 1, a Pastor, pressured her family to convert to Christianity to heal her ailing brother

It was further alleged that Applicant No. 2 (the Pastor’s son) abducted the complainant’s sister, Alpana, in August 2025, and that the complainant herself was later confined and threatened with divine wrath if she did not convert in January 2026

The defense argued that Applicant No. 2 and the alleged victim were in a consensual love marriage and that the charges were a retaliatory measure by the complainant’s family

The applicants have been in custody since February 24, 2026

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the submission of the charge-sheet and their period of incarceration

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with discretionary power to grant regular bail

The substantive offences were registered under Sections 140(3) (abduction), 354 (sexual harassment), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 4 of the C.G. Freedom of Religion Act, 1968, which penalizes conversion by use of force, allurement, or fraudulent means

the principle that bail may be granted when the investigation is complete (indicated by the filing of a charge-sheet) and the trial is unlikely to conclude speedily

The court examined the gravity of the allegations involving abduction and religious coercion alongside the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the State had already submitted the charge-sheet before the competent court, indicating that the custodial interrogation or investigation phase was largely complete

The court placed significant weight on the fact that the applicants had no prior criminal antecedents and had already spent approximately one month in jail

Applying the principles of liberty and the likelihood of a prolonged trial, the court reasoned that the applicants were entitled to bail as long as their presence at trial could be secured through specific conditions, such as personal bonds and undertakings not to delay proceedings

The court held that since the charge-sheet was filed and the applicants had no criminal history, continued detention was not warranted

The relief was granted subject to the execution of a personal bond with two sureties each and strict conditions, including a mandate that the applicants remain present for all trial stages, such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS