By Rajesh Pandey
Denying bail to a Maulana, who was accused of converting a victim to Islam, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a person of any religion and whatever name he is called such as Father, Maulvi, Maulana, Karmkandi etc would be liable under UP anti-conversion Act if he converts any person by force, misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, coercion and allurement.
The applicant accused Maulana (religious preist) – Mohd Shane Alam was accused of forcibly converting a victim to ‘Islam’ and performing her Nikaah with a Muslim man and a criminal case under section 3/5 (1) of UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was registered against him at police station – Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad district.
While rejecting the bail application of Mohd Shane Alam, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal took note of the statement of the victim-girl/Informant recorded under section 164 criminal procedure code (CrPC) wherein she had categorically submitted that she was forced to accept ‘Islam’ and Nikaah was performed thereafter.
The court said that the applicant-accused being the ‘Religion Convertor’ as defined under Section 2(i) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, would be liable under the 2021 Act.
“In the instant case, the applicant, who comes under the definition of “Religion Convertor”, as defined in Section 2(i) of Act, 2021 had got the Nikaah ceremony of the Informant performed with accused Amaan. The necessary declaration has to be obtained before conversion given in section 8 of Act, 2021 was not obtained from the district magistrate (DM), as mandated under the Act, 2021. Defiance of the provision of the Act, 2021 is punishable under section 5 of Act, 2021,” the court remarked.
Section 3 of the 2021 Act prohibits conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion and allurement.
The plea taken by the accused applicant Maulana was that he had only performed Nikah of the informant girl in March 2024 with the accused and had not forcibly converted her to ‘Islam’.
On the other hand, the state counsel, appearing for the state, while opposing the bail application, submitted that the victim had deposed under section 164 CrPC that she was forced to accept ‘Islam’ and Nikaah was performed in March 2024, which was done by the ‘Religion Converter’ – the applicant.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that while the Constitution of India confers on each individual the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate his religion, there have been many cases of religious conversion.
“The Constitution of India guarantees the religious freedom to all persons that reflect the social harmony and spirit of India. According to the Constitution, the state has no religion and all religions are equal before the state and no religion shall be given preference over the other. All persons are free to preach, practice and propagate any religion of their choice. The Constitution confers on each individual the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate his religion. However, in the recent past many such examples came to light where gullible persons have been converted from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by fraudulent means”, the court added.
The court in its order dated August 20 further noted that a ‘religion converter’ could be anyone who, by force, misrepresentation, undue influence etc converts any other person from one religion to another, and it would not matter what his designation is.
