In a significant order questioning the invocation of a special anti-conversion law, the Allahabad High Court has put the State and the complainant on notice, expressing serious doubts over the prompt arrest of petitioners in a case where the primary evidence of "allurement" only surfaced more than two months after the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged. The single-judge bench critically examined the FIR filed under the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, noting that the essential element, a person alleging coercion or conversion, was patently missing at the time of the initial report, which challenges the very basis of the charges.
The controversy began when the petitioners faced an FIR dated August 17, 2025, in Sultanpur, alleging they called a prayer meeting, distributed Bibles, and attempted to convert Dalits and poor persons, leading to charges under the Anti-Conversion Act and Sections 351/352 of the BNS (intentional insult/assault). Counsel for the petitioners argued that the FIR was patently false, lodged by a complainant, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, who merely claimed he received "information" and then barged into the petitioners' verandah with others.
The State, through the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), admitted that while the initial statement of an alleged victim on September 4, 2025, indicated nothing about conversion, a supplementary statement recorded on October 25, 2025, over two months after the arrest, finally introduced the element of "allurement."
The High Court focused its analysis on the strict mandate of Section 3(1) of the Act, 2021, noting that conversion or the attempt to convert must be of a 'person' by force, fraud, or allurement. The Court observed that the FIR, lodged on August 17, indicated only the distribution of Bibles and preaching, neither of which is a crime. The Court highlighted the suspicious delay in recording the victim's statement that supported the conversion charge, which occurred after the arrest. The Bench sternly questioned the state authorities' haste in arresting the petitioners, stating the facts were "strange."
The Court observed, "Thus, it is prima facie apparent that the authorities have bent themselves backward in order to arrest the petitioner(s) even though it is not known as to how the complainant had got information about any offence as alleged in the FIR having come to his knowledge."
The Court granted the AGA four weeks to file a counter affidavit and issued notice to the complainant, directing him to specifically explain (a) how he obtained information about the alleged offence, and (b) what offense the petitioners committed by trying to stop him from barging into their home. The matter is listed as fresh after the expiry of the counter-affidavit period.
Case Title: Ram Kewal Bharti @ Bablu And Others Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 10823 of 2025
Coram: Justice Abdul Moin, Justice Babita Rani
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Upendra Kumar Sagar
Advocate for Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
