Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a bail application filed by Anwar Kadri in a forced conversion case, the Single Judge Bench of Subodh Abhyankar considered the evidence, his involvement, and bail granted to his co-accused, and granted bail to the former Congress Councillor while directing him to mark weekly attendance at the concerned police station in view of his criminal antecedents.
Background of the Case Against Anwar Kadri
An FIR was filed against Anwar Kadri under Sections 111(2)(B), 238, 249, 303(2), 351(3), 61(2)(A), 64, 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3, 4 of Freedom of Religion Act, 2021. The allegation against Anwar Kadri was that he was involved in ensuring the victim’s conversion to Islam in a rape case filed against his co-accused, who was on bail.
Anwar contended that apart from the memo of the co-accused under Section 23(2) of the BSA, there was nothing on record to connect him with the offence, and even the victim had not named him.
Bail Considerations
The Court allowed the application, considering the documents on record, Anwar’s extent of involvement, and the bail granted to his co-accused. Accordingly, he was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his/her regular appearance during trial. He shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Weekly Police Reporting Condition Imposed
However, considering his criminal antecedents, the Court directed Anwar Kadri to mark his presence before the police station concerned on every Sunday between 12:00 Noon and 04:00 PM till the conclusion of the trial. The Court also directed that if he was found to be involved in violation of any of the terms of this order, an application for cancellation of his/her bail may be filed before the Trial Court itself, which shall decide the same as per law.
[Anwar Kadri v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Misc. Criminal Case No. 58287 of 2025, decided on 04-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Sharma
For the respondent: Govt. Advocate Aditya Garg