Read Time: 07 minutes

Rejecting bail petition of the accused in an alleged forceful religious conversion case, Allahabad High Court recently observed,

“There is no place for religious fanaticism and there is no place for greed and fear. If someone converts religion by doing so, then it is not acceptable in any religion and the Indian constitution also does not allow it.”

The Single Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, stressing that it is clear that in the case that the religious conversion was done against the victim’s will and only for the purpose of marriage, held,

“It appears from the victim’s statement taken under section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she is so scared and feared that because of such shame and fear she couldn’t tell whatever happened with her. In the light of the above-given circumstances, the applicant/accused is not worthy of bail and his bail application deserves to be dismissed.”

According to the victim’s father, on November 17, 2020, the 21-year-old Hindu woman went for marketing at Etah, Jalesar but did not return. Her father went in search of her only coming to know that one Javed alias Jabid Ansari (applicant/accused) with help of his two brothers-in-law abducted his daughter and taken her to Delhi.

Later, when the woman could get a chance, she called the Police and gave her statement against the accused. It is alleged that the accused, an already married man, forced her to marry him. She was threatened and made to sign on a paper in Urdu, which she couldn’t read. 

It is also alleged that no notice of the marriage was given to the DM as is mandatory under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act.

Therefore, a case was registered against the accused under Section 366, 368, 120-B of IPC and Section 5 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful conversion of Religion Act, 2020.

On the other hand, the petitioner said that both the parties are adults and the girl changed her religion on her own free will and got married to him. It was also submitted that the religion was converted even before the UP-Conversion Law came into force.

Significant observations of the Court

In the light of the facts of the case, the court observed,

"…the applicant/accused is not entitled to bail and the bail application is liable to be rejected. Failure to do so will give strength to those religious contractors of the society who convert the poor and women wrongly by giving them fear, temptation. Nowadays, many such cases are being seen on the TV and in newspapers, wherein poor, helpless, dumb, deaf women, etc. are brainwashed. The saddest thing is that such people are encouraged and funded from abroad, just to weaken the country."

Highlighting that Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution allows religious conversion but nowhere in the law a forced conversion is either allowed or even tolerated. The Court said,

“It is to be remembered that Article 25 (1) guarantees freedom of conscience to every citizen, not only to followers of only one particular religion and it shows that there is no fundamental right to forcibly convert any other person to anyone’s religion because if any person will act apart from trying to spread or propagate the doctrine of his religion, which is common to all citizens of the country, this will affect the guaranteed freedom of conscience.”