Allahabad High Court: Denies Religious Conversion Bail to Umar Gautam, 7 Others

• The Allahabad High Court granted post-conviction bail to eight individuals while denying it to eight others, including Umar Gautam and Kaleem Siddiqui, in a 2021 religious conversion case.
• The court differentiated its decision based on the severity of allegations and the nature of evidence against each appellant.
• Defense arguments challenged the trial court's judgment and the legality of the FIR, citing the unamended Section 4 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
• The court noted that some individuals granted bail were not convicted under the serious charge of Section 121A IPC.
• The State had argued that convictions were supported by extensive evidence and that vulnerable groups were targeted for conversion.

The court's decision to grant bail to some while denying it to others was predicated on a careful assessment of the individual roles and the nature of the evidence.

The Allahabad High Court, specifically its Lucknow Bench, recently issued a significant ruling on November 4, addressing multiple post-conviction bail applications in a prominent 2021 mass illegal religious conversion case. A division bench comprising Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra delivered a split decision, granting bail to eight individuals while simultaneously rejecting the applications of eight others, including key figures Mohd. Umar Gautam and Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui.

This judicial review stemmed from 16 criminal appeals challenging a September 11, 2024 judgment rendered by the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency (NIA), Lucknow. The court's decision differentiated between the accused based on the perceived gravity of their involvement and the evidence presented against them. Among those granted post-conviction bail were Mannu Yadav, Abdullah Umar, Dheeraj Govindrao Jagtap, Bhoopriya Bando alias Arslan Mustafa, Sarfaraz Ali Jafri, Mohd. Saleem, Kunal Ashok Chaudhari alias Atif, and Rahul Bhola. Conversely, bail was denied to Umar Gautam, Kaleem Siddiqui, Mufti Qazi Jhangeer Qasmi, Sallahuddin Jainuddin Sheikh, Prasad Rameshwar Kawre alias Adam, Irfan Shaikh, Kauser Alam, and Dr. Faraz Babullah Shah.

The appellants mounted a robust defense, contending that the trial court's original judgment was flawed, relying heavily on speculation, presumptions, and a substantial reproduction of material from the case diary. A central point of contention revolved around the procedural validity of the First Information Report (FIR) itself. They argued that the FIR, lodged by an Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) sub-inspector, was legally defective under the unamended Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. This specific provision mandated that only an aggrieved person or their designated relatives could initiate an FIR for offenses under Section 3 of the Act.

Drawing upon the Supreme Court's precedent in *Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, the defense asserted that the improperly lodged FIR vitiated all subsequent proceedings. Further challenges included questioning the applicability of Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to conspiracy to wage war against the state or overawe the government. The defense also raised doubts regarding the admissibility of alleged police confessions and the prosecution's reliance on electronic evidence. In opposition, the State maintained that the convictions were well-supported by a comprehensive array of oral, documentary, and digital evidence, including testimony from 24 prosecution witnesses. The prosecution alleged that the accused had deliberately targeted vulnerable populations, such as women, children, and individuals with disabilities, employing inducements, coercion, and misrepresentation to facilitate religious conversions.

The High Court's decision to grant bail to some while denying it to others was predicated on a careful assessment of the individual roles and the nature of the evidence. The bench explicitly noted that the allegations and the corroborating evidence against the eight individuals whose bail applications were rejected, including Umar Gautam and Kaleem Siddiqui, were deemed to be of an extremely serious character. This gravity of evidence formed the primary basis for their continued incarceration.

In stark contrast, the court found that the allegations and the evidentiary weight against the other appellants, who were largely described as associates rather than primary orchestrators, were comparatively less severe. The bench determined that, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, their specific individual roles, and the evidence pertaining to their overt acts, these eight individuals were deserving of bail. A notable distinction was made for Mohd. Saleem, Rahul Bhola, Mannu Yadav, and Kunal Ashok Chaudhari alias Atif, who had not been convicted under Section 121A IPC, a charge dealing with conspiracy against the state, which is now Section 148 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

This ruling from the Allahabad High Court provides crucial insight into the judicial approach to post-conviction bail in complex religious conversion cases under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. The court's meticulous differentiation between the accused, based on the severity of allegations and the nature of evidence, underscores a nuanced application of legal principles rather than a blanket decision. It highlights that even in cases involving serious charges, individual culpability and the strength of evidence against each defendant remain paramount considerations for bail.

The decision also brings into focus the ongoing legal scrutiny surrounding the procedural aspects of the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law, particularly concerning the validity of FIRs lodged by non-aggrieved parties. Furthermore, the court's consideration of the applicability of Section 121A IPC and the specific exclusion of some individuals from this conviction demonstrates a careful evaluation of the scope and gravity of charges in such sensitive matters, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar legal challenges in India.

Lawyers should note the Allahabad HC's differentiation in bail grants based on the severity of allegations and individual roles in religious conversion cases, particularly concerning the procedural validity of FIRs under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and the applicability of Section 121A IPC.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench