The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I granted bail to a man booked under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, popularly known as the 'Love Jihad' law of Uttar Pradesh, noting that nothing convincing had been argued on behalf of the complainant & State to deny him bail. (Motilal @ Motiram v. State of U.P. and Another)
Facts of the case
The present bail plea of was filed by the Appellant/Accused Motiram under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 with the prayer to set aside the order, passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Saharanpur in Case Crime No. 122 of 2021, under Sections - 342, 366, 384, 506 I.P.C. & 3/5 (1) The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance & 67A I.T. Act, Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Saharanpur.
He claimed that he had a distinct case from the other co-accused in the matter, who were, allegedly, directly involved in the process of conversion of religion.
Contention of the Parties
It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the only role assigned in the statement of the victim recorded under Section - 161 Cr.P.C. was to the extent of his presence on the spot, when the alleged conversion of the victim was being made.
Except that, it was further contended, there was nothing concrete against the appellant and that being the neighbor of the victim, he had been involved in this case, on account of enmity.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The Court taking note of the submissions made by the counsels observed thus:
"....having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal. Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant."
The court allowing the appeal held, "Thus in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court opined that the appellant had made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order dated 07.04.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant was set aside."
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
