# Shriniwas Rav Nayak v. State of U.P. 1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 999
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-09
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 11804 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shriniwas-rav-nayak-v-state-of-u-p-1000-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-52367
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Unlawful conversion of
religion - Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2021 - Sections 3/5 (1), 2(a) & 4, 2(i) -
institution of India: Article 25 - Presence
of
Religion
Convertor
when
the
conversion
is
taking
place
is
not
necessary for it to be a punishable act.
The Act does not provide that a Religion
Convertor should be present when the
conversion is taking place. (Para 19)

In the instant case, the informant was
persuaded to convert to another religion,
which is prima facie sufficient to decline
bail to the applicant as it establishes that a
conversion
programme
was
going
on
where
many
villagers
belonging
to
Scheduled Castes community were being
converted
from
Hindu
religion
to
Christianity. There arises no occasion as to
why the informant would rope in the
applicant, who is a resident of Andhra
Pradesh, falsely in a case of unlawful
religion conversion. Neither in the bail
application nor during argument, it has
been submitted that there stood any
enmity between the informant and the
applicant. (Para 20)

This Court finds that prima facie a case for
unlawful religion conversion is made out under
the Act of 2021 and the applicant cannot be
enlarged on bail, as the Act prohibits religion
conversion u/s 3, which is punishable u/s 5 of
the Act of the 2021. (Para 21)

Bail application rejected. (E-4)

Present application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., is
for seeking enlargement on bail, during
the pendency of trial.

## Text

7 All. Shriniwas Rav Nayak Vs. State of U.P.
999
Authority (Supra) merits rejection as it is
fairly well settled that constitutional power
under
Article
226
are
extraordinary
discretionary power conferred upon the
constitutional courts and the court can
refuse to exercise the said power on various
factors one of them being that the person
not approaching clean hand and concealing
the material facts whereas in the present
case, the power invoked by the court is
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which is a
statutory power and does not confer
extraordinary discretion and cannot be
exercised on the same analogy, as is
required for exercise of power under
Article 226. Further more in terms of the
provisions contained in Chapter XVIII Rule
18-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952, the application for bail under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. are required to disclose facts
as specified from sub-rule 1 to sub-rule 8.
In short, the requirements of exercise of
powers under Article 226 are on different
footing and the exercise of power under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised
on the same lines.

21.

In
the
present
case,
admittedly civil litigations are going on
in between the parties, the FIR has been
lodged after almost 8 years of the alleged
incident and after the injunction order
was confirmed after hearing both the
parties coupled with the fact that the
applicant is aged about 74 years and only
allegation against him is that he was an
attesting witness. Further more there is no
material to suggest that the applicant is
either at a flight risk or in any way can
adversely effect the trial, if enlarged on
bail, thus, on these grounds the applicant
is entitled for the benefit of anticipatory
bail
till
conclusion
of
the
trial.
Accordingly,
the
anticipatory
bail
application is allowed.
22. In the event of arrest, let the
applicant Achchey Lal Jaiswal be released
on anticipatory bail in the abovesaid first
information report number till conclusion of
the trial on his furnishing personal bonds and
two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to
the satisfaction of the court concerned with
the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall execute a
bond to undertake to attend the hearings;
(b) The applicant shall not
commit any offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused or
suspected of the commission; and
(c) The applicant shall not
directly
or
indirectly
make
any
inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.
(d) The applicant shall not leave
India without the previous permission of
the Court.

23. This Court appreciates its
appreciation provided by Ms. Rajshree
Lakshmi, Research Associate/ Law Clerk in
deciding the case.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 999
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 11804 of 2024

Shriniwas Rav Nayak ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Patsy David, Ms. Sanju Lata, Sri Saurabh
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Unlawful conversion of
religion - Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2021 - Sections 3/5 (1), 2(a) & 4, 2(i) -
institution of India: Article 25 - Presence
of
Religion
Convertor
when
the
conversion
is
taking
place
is
not
necessary for it to be a punishable act.
The Act does not provide that a Religion
Convertor should be present when the
conversion is taking place. (Para 19)

In the instant case, the informant was
persuaded to convert to another religion,
which is prima facie sufficient to decline
bail to the applicant as it establishes that a
conversion
programme
was
going
on
where
many
villagers
belonging
to
Scheduled Castes community were being
converted
from
Hindu
religion
to
Christianity. There arises no occasion as to
why the informant would rope in the
applicant, who is a resident of Andhra
Pradesh, falsely in a case of unlawful
religion conversion. Neither in the bail
application nor during argument, it has
been submitted that there stood any
enmity between the informant and the
applicant. (Para 20)

This Court finds that prima facie a case for
unlawful religion conversion is made out under
the Act of 2021 and the applicant cannot be
enlarged on bail, as the Act prohibits religion
conversion u/s 3, which is punishable u/s 5 of
the Act of the 2021. (Para 21)

Bail application rejected. (E-4)

Present application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., is
for seeking enlargement on bail, during
the pendency of trial.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Sanju Lata, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of this application
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant who
is involved in Case Crime No. 78 of 2024,
under Sections 3/5 (1) of Uttar Pradesh
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred as
'the Act of 2021'), Police Station- Nichlaul,
District- Maharajganj seeks enlargement on
bail, during the pendency of trial.

3. The prosecution story as
unfolded in the First Information Report is
that on 15.02.2024, the informant was
invited to the house of co-accused,
Vishwanath. When he reached there he saw
that many people of village were there,
most of them belonging to Scheduled
Castes community. Along with the coaccused, Vishwanath, his brother, Brijlal,
the applicant and one Ravindra were
present. He was asked to leave Hindu
religion and accept Christianity. He was
told that once he accepts Christianity, all
his pain would come to an end and he
would progress in life. Some of the
villagers on the assurance had accepted
Christianity and started praying. The
informant after making an excuse ran away
and informed the Police.

4. Learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that the applicant has
no connection with the alleged conversion
and is a domestic help of one of the coaccused and is resident of Andhra Pradesh
and has been falsely roped in in the instant
case. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the FIR does not disclose
any religion convertor as defined under
Section 2(I)(i) of the Act of 2021. Further,
statement of witnesses as alleged by the
7 All. Shriniwas Rav Nayak Vs. State of U.P.
1001
Police cannot be accepted as no undue
influence
was
put
for
converting.
Moreover, no person who has accepted
Christianity has come forward to make any
complaint.

5. Learned A.G.A. while opposing
the bail application has submitted that mass
conversion was going on, and the informant
who was asked to accept Christianity had
refused and had informed the Police in
writing upon which the applicant was
arrested. According to him, case under
Section 3/5 of the Act of 2021 is made out
against the applicant who is a resident of
Andhra Pradesh and had come to the place
in question at Maharajganj where the
conversion was taking place and was
actively participating in the conversion
from one religion to another which is
against the law.

6. I have heard respective counsel
for the parties and perused the material on
record.

7. The U.P. Act No. 3 of 2021
came into force on 4th March, 2021 after
receiving assent of the Governor. It was
published in the Government Gazette on
5th March, 2021. The statement of object
and reason for enforcing the Act was to
provide
for
prohibition
of
unlawful
conversion from one religion to another by
misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent
means or by marriage and for the matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.

8. The Constitution of India
guarantees religious freedom to all persons
which reflects the social harmony and spirit
of India. The objective of this right is to
sustain the spirit of secularism in India.
According to the Constitution, State has no
religion and all religions are equal before
the State, and no religion shall be given
preference over the other. All the persons
are free to preach, practice and propagate
any religion of their choice.

9. The Constitution confers on
each individual the fundamental right to
profess, practice and propagate his religion.
However, 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.

10. Section 2(a) of the Act of 2021
defines "Allurement", Section 2(b) defines
"Coercion",
Section
2(c)
defines
"Conversion",
Section
2(e)
defines
"Fraudulent means", Section 2(f) defines
"Mass Conversion", Section 2(h) defines
"Religion", Section 2(i) defines "Religion
Convertor"
and
Section
2(j)
defines
"Undue influence". The definition of above
are extracted hereasunder:-

"Section 2(a) "Allurement"
means and includes offer of any
temptation in the form of:
(i)
any
gift,
gratification, easy money
or material benefit either in
cash or kind;
(ii)
employment,
free education in reputed
school run by any religious
body; or
(iii) better lifestyle,
divine
displeasure
or
otherwise;.
(b)
"Coercion"
means
compelling an individual to act
against his/her will by the use of
psychological pressure or physical
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
force causing bodily injury or
threat thereof;
(c) "Conversion" means
renouncing one's own religion and
adopting another religion;
(e)
"Fraudulent
means"
includes impersonation of any kind,
by false name, surname, religious
symbol or otherwise;
(f)
"Mass
Conversion"
means where two or more persons
are converted;
(h) "Religion" means any
organized
system
of
worship
pattern, faith, belief, worship or
lifestyle, as prevailing in India or
any part of it, and defined under
any law or custom for the time
being in force;
(i) "Religion Convertor"
means person of any religion who
performs any act of conversion
from one religion to another
religion and by whatever name he
is
called
such
as
Father,
Karmkandi, Maulvi or Mulla etc;.
(j)
"Undue
influence"
means the unconscientious use by
one person of his/her power or
influence over another in order to
persuade the other to act in
accordance with the will of the
person exercising such influence."

11. Section 3 prohibits conversion
from one religion to another religion by
misrepresentation,
force,
fraud, undue
influence, coercion and allurement. It
further states that no person shall abet,
convince or conspire such conversion.

12. Section 4 provides for lodging
of First Information Report by any person
aggrieved, his/her parents, brother, sister, or
any other person who is related to him/her
by blood, marriage or adoption which
contravenes the provisions of section 3.
Section 5 provides for punishment for
contravention of provisions of section 3.

13. From the reading of the above,
it is clear that the Act in Section 3 clearly
prohibits conversion from one religion to
another
religion
on
the
basis
of
misrepresentation,
force,
fraud, undue
influence, coercion and allurement. The Act
further
provides
for
punishment
for
contravention of provisions of the section
which also restricts a person not to abet,
convince or conspire such conversion.

14. Article 25 of Constitution of
India provides freedom of conscience and
free profession, practice and propagation of
religion. For better appreciation, it is
extracted as under:-

"25.
Freedom
of
conscience and free profession,
practice
and
propagation
of
religion. - (1) Subject to public
order, morality and health and to
the other provisions of this Part, all
persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right
freely to profess, practise and
propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article
shall affect the operation of any
existing law or prevent the State
from making any law-
(a) regulating or restricting
any economic, financial, political
or other secular activity which may
be
associated
with
religious
practice;
(b) providing for social
welfare and reform or the throwing
open of Hindu religious institutions
7 All. Shriniwas Rav Nayak Vs. State of U.P.
1003
of a public character to all classes
and sections of Hindus.
Explanation
I.-The
wearing and carrying of kirpans
shall be deemed to be included in
the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.-In subclause (b) of clause (2), the
reference to Hindus shall be
construed as including a reference
to persons professing the Sikh,
Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the
reference
to
Hindu
religious
institutions shall be construed
accordingly."

15. The Constitution clearly
envisages and permits its citizens right to
freedom of religion in respect to their
professing, practising and propagating its
religion. It does not allow or permit any
citizen to convert any citizen from one
religion to another religion.

16. The Act of 2021 was enacted
keeping in view the above constitutional
provision for prohibiting of unlawful
conversion from one religion to another.

17. In the instant case, the
informant was invited by the co-accused,
Vishwanath to his house on 15.02.2024
for attending a programme where it was
found by the informant that number of
villagers had gathered, mostly belonging
to Scheduled Castes community who
were being allured and misrepresented to
convert to Christianity leaving their
religion on the premise that their pain and
sorrow will come to an end, and they will
progress in life. Some of the villagers on
the assurance had accepted Christianity,
while the informant ran away from the
programme and informed the Police in
writing.
18.

Moreover,
during
the
investigation, the Police had recorded
statement of independent witnesses which
has been brought on record by State
through counter affidavit which clearly
reveals that such function was held in
which the conversion was taking place.

19. The argument raised from the
applicant side that there was no Religion
Convertor present when the conversion was
taking place is of no help as Section 2(i)
only defines "Religion Convertor". The Act
does not provide that a Religion Convertor
should be present when the conversion is
taking place.

20. In the instant case, the
informant was persuaded to convert to
another religion, which is prima facie
sufficient to decline bail to the applicant as
it establishes that a conversion programme
was going on where many villagers
belonging to Scheduled Castes community
were being converted from Hindu religion
to Christianity. There arises no occasion as
to why the informant would rope in the
applicant, who is a resident of Andhra
Pradesh, falsely in a case of unlawful
religion conversion. Neither in the bail
application nor during argument, it has
been submitted that there stood any enmity
between the informant and the applicant.

21. This Court finds that prima
facie
a
case
for
unlawful
religion
conversion is made out under the Act of
2021 and the applicant cannot be enlarged
on bail, as the Act prohibits religion
conversion under Section 3, which is
punishable under Section 5 of the Act of
the 2021.

22. In view of above, the bail
application stands rejected.
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1004
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18596 of 2024

Satish Alias Chand ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Manvendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 363, 366 & 376 - The
Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(J)2/6
- The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
-
Section
164
-
As
per
prosecution - Applicant have enticed
away the minor daughter of informant
on 13.6.2023 - Held, principle of
"Presumption of Innocence Unless
Proven Guilty," gives rise to the
concept
of
bail
as
a
rule
and
imprisonment as an exception - A
person's right to life and liberty,
guaranteed by Article 21, cannot be
taken away simply because he or she
is accused of committing an offence
until guilt is established beyond a
reasonable doubt - Challenge lies in
distinguishing between genuine cases
of exploitation and those involving
consensual relationships - It requires
a
nuanced
approach
and
careful
judicial consideration to ensure justice
- Applicant have made out a case for
bail (Para 4, 5, 11, 15, 16)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
1. Jaya Mala Vs St. of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538

2. Mohd. Imran Khan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192

3. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
825

4. Ramashankar Vs St. of U.P., 2022:AHCLKO:29649

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Learned A.G.A. has informed
that notice to the informant has been served
on 10.5.2024.

3. Heard Sri Manvendra Kumar,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No.205 of 2023, under Sections 363,
366, 376 I.P.C. and 5(J)2/6 POCSO Act,
Police Station- Barahaj, District- Deoria,
during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

5. As per prosecution story, the
applicant is stated to have enticed away the
minor daughter of the informant on
13.6.2023 at about 04:00 p.m.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
(Arguments
on
behalf
of
applicant)

6. Learned counsel for the
applicant has stated that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The FIR is
delayed by about four days and there is no