Religious Conversion Case: Chhattisgarh Court grants Bail to Two Accused Nuns
A Special Court in Chhattisgarh designated under the NIA Act granted bail to three accused, including two Nuns, in a religious conversion case, observing that the allegations appeared to stem from “mere apprehension and suspicion” rather than solid evidence.
The applicants, Sukaman Mandavi, Vandana Francis, and Preeti Mary, were arrested on July 25, 2025, in connection with an FIR registered at GRP Police Station, Bhilai, for offences under Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968.
The prosecution had alleged that the three accused were involved in luring three tribal girls from Narayanpur and taking them to Agra for conversion and possible trafficking. The complainant claimed that the girls were being escorted by a boy, handed over to the two nuns, and were to travel by train, raising suspicions of religious conversion and human trafficking.
The case was triggered by a complaint from one Ravi Nigam, who alleged a suspected instance of forced conversion and human trafficking.
Special Judge Sirajuddin Qureshi found the allegations to be primarily based on “mere apprehension and suspicion,” observing that no concrete evidence had been presented to justify continued detention.
The Court noted that none of the accused had any prior criminal history, and this was the first FIR registered against them. Arrest memos showed no indication that the applicants were habitual offenders or fell under any dangerous category. It was also recorded that there was no risk of absconding, despite the objector’s claim that the applicants being from Kerala posed such a threat.
Importantly, the Court took note of affidavits submitted by the parents of all three girls, stating that the accused had not coerced or forced their daughters into religious conversion or trafficking. Of the three girls, two gave statements under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023, affirming that they had been practicing Christians since childhood.
While acknowledging that the accused had been arrested and relevant property seizures had been made, the Court emphasized that no charge sheet had yet been filed. There was also no requisition from the Investigating Agency for custodial interrogation.
The Court found that the investigation and trial would take time and that "no compelling reason" had been shown to warrant continued custody.
The Court relied on multiple Supreme Court decisions, including Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020), Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher (2024), and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020), reiterating that bail is the rule and jail the exception. It underlined that the gravity of the offence must be considered based on facts, and the denial of liberty cannot rest solely on suspicion.
Granting relief under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, the Court imposed several conditions on the accused, including:
1. They shall not leave India without permission of the Special Court.
2. Their passports must be surrendered.
3. They must report fortnightly to the local police station.
4. No public statements or press interviews related to the case.
5. Full cooperation with the investigation.
6. No tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Additionally, the Court clarified that the order was not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case, which would be assessed during trial.
Case Title: Preethy Mary and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
Order Date: August 2, 2025
Bench: Special Judge Sirajuddin Qureshi