The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday rejected a bail plea in a case of alleged forced religious conversion, stating that religious freedom does not encompass a collective right to convert others. The ruling came in a case involving accusations of forcible conversion to Islam and sexual exploitation.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, presiding over the bench, emphasized that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, aims to protect religious freedom for all individuals and maintain India’s secular fabric.
The court clarified that while the Constitution guarantees every individual the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, this personal right does not extend to converting others. “Religious freedom is equally available to the person converting and the person being converted,” Justice Agarwal said.
The case in question involved a man named Azeem, accused of forcing a girl to convert to Islam and sexually exploiting her. Charges were filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.
The applicant-accused filed a petition in the High Court, claiming that he was falsely implicated. He asserted that the girl, who was in a relationship with him, had voluntarily left her home. He also claimed that the girl had already confirmed their marriage in statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC in the related case.
On the other hand, the government lawyer opposed his bail under Section 164 of the CrPC, which mentioned pressure to convert to Islam and described a marriage that took place without conversion.
In light of these facts, the court noted that the informant had clearly stated in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC that the petitioner and his family members were forcing her to accept Islam. She was also compelled to witness the sacrifice of animals on the day of Bakrid and to prepare and consume non-vegetarian food.
The court further stated that the applicant allegedly held her captive and that his family members forced her to perform certain Islamic rituals that she did not accept.
Further, the court found that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, she had maintained the version of the FIR.
Importantly, the court also noted that the petitioner had failed to present any material evidence on record to show that before the marriage/nikah, an application was filed under Section 8 of the 2021 Act to convert the informant to Islam, as alleged between him and the informant.
After considering the facts and circumstances, the court dismissed the petitioner’s bail application, stating that there was a prima facie violation of Sections 3 and 8 of the 2021 Act, which is punishable under Section 5 of the same Act.
(Inputs from ANI)