<p>Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has allowed the anticipatory bail of religious storytellers Sant Singh Yadav and Mukat Singh Yadav, booked on charges of insulting faith.</p>.<p>The two were booked at Bakewar Police Station of Etawah under Section 299 (intent to insult religious beliefs), and Section 318(4) (cheating) of the BNS.</p>.<p>The two storytellers were allegedly held captive, tonsured, and forced to drink urine by some people for not being from the "upper caste." According to their counsel, an FIR was lodged against these people as well.</p>.<p>"In counterblast to the FIR by the applicants, the instant prosecution has been instituted against the applicants," the counsel said.</p>.'A for Akhilesh, D for Dimple': Lessons in schools started by Samajwadi Party lead to FIR in UP district.<p>In his order dated July 29, Justice Vivek Varma observed, "... considering the nature of accusations … the alleged offences are not made out against the applicant at this stage." He added, "There is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence; without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged." </p>
<p>Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has allowed the anticipatory bail of religious storytellers Sant Singh Yadav and Mukat Singh Yadav, booked on charges of insulting faith.</p>.<p>The two were booked at Bakewar Police Station of Etawah under Section 299 (intent to insult religious beliefs), and Section 318(4) (cheating) of the BNS.</p>.<p>The two storytellers were allegedly held captive, tonsured, and forced to drink urine by some people for not being from the "upper caste." According to their counsel, an FIR was lodged against these people as well.</p>.<p>"In counterblast to the FIR by the applicants, the instant prosecution has been instituted against the applicants," the counsel said.</p>.'A for Akhilesh, D for Dimple': Lessons in schools started by Samajwadi Party lead to FIR in UP district.<p>In his order dated July 29, Justice Vivek Varma observed, "... considering the nature of accusations … the alleged offences are not made out against the applicant at this stage." He added, "There is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence; without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged." </p>