Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently said that basic object and reason of enforcement of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was to guarantee religious freedom to all persons. The objective of this Act was to sustain the spirit of secularism in India, said the court. 

The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal emphasised that according to the Constitution, the State has no religion, all religions are equal before it and no religion shall be given preference over the other.

"All persons are free to preach, practice and propagate any religion of their choice," it pointed out while stressing that the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytize.

"The right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted," court asserted. 

The observations were made by the court while dealing with a bail application in an unlawful religious conversion case.

The accused namely Ajeem is facing charges under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3/5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The case against him is that he made videos of the victim girl and blackmailed her with those to sexually exploit her. Apart from that, allegedly Azeem pressured the girl to marry him. As per the girl, she was kept in captivity and was forced to accept Islam. She was also asked to eat non-vegetarian food and to wear clothes worn by Muslims, she claimed. 

The counsel representing Azeem argued that he had been falsely implicated in the present case and in fact, the girl was in love with him. He referred to another earlier FIR where the girl had stated that she had solemnized marriage with Azeem. 

On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail plea contending that the statement of the girl which was recorded under Section 164 CrPC clearly revealed that without any conversion, her Nikah ceremony was performed with Azeem, and the girl had stated that on the day of Bakrid, her father-in-law asked her to watch how sacrifice was given, which she had refused.

The high court noted that the victim girl had maintained the FIR version in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

More importantly, court pointed out that the accused could not bring on record any material to demonstrate that any application was moved under Section 8 of the Act of 2021 for getting the girl converted into Islam before the marriage/Nikah took place, as alleged between him and the girl. 

Therefore, while noting that in the present case, there was a contravention of Sections 3 and 8 of the Act of 2021, which is punishable under Section 5 of the Act of 2021, court held that no case for bail was made out by the accused. 

Accordingly, court rejected the bail plea. 

Case Title: Ajeem v. State of U.P.