Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused Under M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.


13 October 2025
In a landmark judgment on October 13, 2025, India's Supreme Court granted Criminal Appeal No. 4465 of 2025 filed by Sejnath Suryawanshi and another, overruling the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejecting their anticipatory bail. The two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih ruled that based on the facts of the case and cooperation extended by the appellants to the investigation, the refusal of protection from arrest was not warranted.

The appellants were accused in FIR No. 85 of 2025, which was lodged at GRP Outpost, Basoda, District Vidisha, under Sections 3 and 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021. The provisions pertain to suspected offenses of illegal religious conversion and entail significant penalties.


 

 

At the hearing, the Court observed that the appellants had already become party to the investigation under an earlier interim order. Noting that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this juncture, the bench found an urgency in granting them anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it ordered that, if the appellants are arrested, they shall be released on bail on terms to be fixed by the trial court.

The order also lays down general conditions that regulate anticipatory bail. The appellants have been ordered not to tamper with witnesses or evidence. Additionally, they are required to keep on cooperating with the investigation as and when called upon by the investigating officer. In the event of a failure to do so, the officer has been left free to seek directions from the trial court.

Notably, the Court made it clear that such observations are limited to the bail issue and ought not to be interpreted as any remarks on the criminal case's merits. Through this emphasis on such a demarcation, the Supreme Court reasserted the rule that anticipatory bail orders are prophylactic in character, protecting individual liberty while keeping the prosecution at liberty to pursue investigation on legal footing.

This judgment exemplifies the Court's persistent stance that anticipatory bail should be accorded where the accused shows bona fide cooperation and the charges do not require custodial interrogation. It upholds the constitutional balance between the State's power to investigate and the right of an individual to liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.