The Allahabad High Court has clarified that courts cannot quash non-bailable warrants at the threshold merely on allegations of mala fide intent when the case involves factual disputes requiring evidence appraisal. Instead, it ordered a conditional stay of the warrant, permitting applicants to surrender and seek bail within a defined window.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Talib Hasan @ Ankit and six others, are accused in Crime No. 341 of 2024, registered at Police Station Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad, under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Section 3/5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. The allegations pertain to alleged unlawful religious conversion and associated acts deemed atrocities under the SC/ST Act.
Key Facts
- The case was registered on an FIR dated 15.09.2024
- A non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicants on 28.11.2025 by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ghaziabad
- The applicants claim the prosecution is mala fide, initiated to harass them, and that no cognizable offence under the cited provisions is disclosed
- They submitted documents and statements to support their contention that the conversion was consensual and not coercive
- No charge sheet has been filed as of the date of the High Court’s order
Procedural History
- 15.09.2024: FIR registered at Police Station Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad
- 28.11.2025: Special Judge issued non-bailable warrant against the seven applicants
- 08.06.2026: Application under Section 528 BNSS filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the warrant
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicants
The applicants, through counsel Ram Shyam Shanker Pandey and Subodh Pandey, contended that:
- The allegations do not constitute any offence under the SC/ST Act or the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act
- The prosecution is motivated by personal vendetta and lacks credible evidence
- The issuance of a non-bailable warrant at the pre-charge stage is disproportionate and abusive
- The documents submitted establish the voluntary nature of the religious conversion
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the application, arguing that:
- The allegations, if proven, prima facie attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the U.P. Conversion Act
- The court below acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the warrant
- The applicants’ claims of mala fide require evidentiary scrutiny at trial, not at the quashing stage
Relief Sought
The applicants sought:
- Quashing of the non-bailable warrant dated 28.11.2025
- Cancellation of all proceedings in Crime No. 341 of 2024
- Direction to the police to refrain from arrest or harassment
The Legal Issue
Can a non-bailable warrant issued under the SC/ST Act and U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act be quashed at the threshold on grounds of mala fide and absence of offence, where the allegations involve factual disputes requiring evidence appraisal?
Arguments Presented
For the Applicants
The applicants relied on the principle that courts must exercise caution before allowing criminal proceedings to proceed where the allegations, even if true, do not disclose a cognizable offence. They cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest and warrant issuance must be proportionate and not automatic. They emphasized that the conversion was consensual, supported by affidavits and witness statements, and that invoking the SC/ST Act requires a clear nexus between caste-based animus and the alleged act - absent here.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the allegations, if established, fall squarely within Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which criminalizes acts intended to insult or intimidate members of Scheduled Castes or Tribes. The State argued that the nature of the offence - alleged forced conversion coupled with public humiliation - justifies the issuance of a non-bailable warrant. It further contended that the applicants’ factual assertions cannot be accepted at the quashing stage without trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the stage of proceedings. It noted that the applicants’ challenge hinges on factual assertions regarding the voluntariness of conversion and the absence of caste-based motive - issues that require examination of documents, witness testimony, and forensic evidence.
"The argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence."
The Court held that quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS is an extraordinary remedy, available only where the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not disclose any offence, or where the prosecution is manifestly mala fide and devoid of any basis. Here, the Court found that the allegations, on their face, prima facie attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the U.P. Conversion Act. The Court further observed that the applicants’ submissions, while potentially exculpatory, could not be accepted as conclusive without cross-examination and evidentiary evaluation.
However, recognizing the gravity of the non-bailable warrant and the potential for undue harassment, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now BNSS) to grant interim relief. It balanced the need to uphold the integrity of the investigation with the rights of the accused.
The Verdict
The application for quashing of the non-bailable warrant dated 28.11.2025 was dismissed. However, the Court directed that the warrant shall remain in abeyance for three weeks from 08.06.2026. During this period, the applicants may surrender before the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ghaziabad, and apply for regular bail. The trial court shall consider the bail application in accordance with law. The warrant shall be revived if the applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Factual Disputes Cannot Be Resolved at Quashing Stage
- Practitioners must avoid seeking quashing of warrants or FIRs where the defence hinges on factual rebuttals - these require trial
- Courts will not entertain blanket claims of mala fide without concrete, verifiable evidence of abuse of process
- The burden to prove mala fide lies squarely on the accused, and mere assertions are insufficient
Conditional Stay of Warrants Is a Viable Intermediate Remedy
- Courts may stay non-bailable warrants pending bail application, especially in cases involving sensitive statutes like the SC/ST Act
- Applicants must act promptly: failure to surrender within the stipulated time revives the warrant
- This approach prevents harassment while preserving the state’s right to prosecute
SC/ST Act Allegations Require Careful Threshold Scrutiny
- Allegations under the SC/ST Act must demonstrate a direct link between caste identity and the alleged act
- Consensual religious conversion, even if controversial, does not automatically attract Section 3(2)(v) unless caste-based humiliation is evident
- Prosecutors must avoid overreach by invoking the SC/ST Act in cases lacking caste-based animus
