‘Victims’ of religious conversion can be booked for offence if they induce others to convert: Gujarat HC

The court made the observations in an order issued recently after dismissing a bunch of petitions seeking quashing of a 2021 FIR filed at Amod Police station in Bharuch in the case of conversion of 100 tribals from 35 Hindu families since 2006.

Gujarat HC Justice Nirzar S Desai pronounced a common verbal judgment in a group of petitions on September 30 and October 1, a day after passing an order on September 29, to stop the live-streaming in the matter and also to “not telecast” the proceedings in the case after hearing all counsels appearing for the parties and “looking to the sensitivity of the matter”.

Rejecting the submission that some of the accused – who had also originally converted to Islam and were accused of alluring other persons from their community to follow suit – should be said to be “victims of conversion” and not arraigned as “accused”, the court order said, “The submission that some of the accused persons who actually can be said to be victim of conversion could not have been arraigned as an accused cannot be accepted simply for the reason that had those persons after getting converted not indulged into any activity of further conversion, they could have been said to be victims of conversion. However, on account of their act of influencing and pressurizing and alluring other persons to convert to Islam, as can be seen from the FIR as well as statements of the witnesses, of course, those allegations are prima facie in nature for which today, upon examination of material produced, the Court is of the view that conversion of the victims indicates that a prima facie offence is made out…”According to the FIR, the complainant – a resident of Aamod in Bharuch district, who converted to Islam in 2018 – had stated that 15 years from the date of the FIR one Shabbir Bekriwala and Samjbhai Bekriwala had begun converting villagers “by giving temptations and alluring in respect of providing financial aid and on a promise to construct the house… and thereafter they provided financial aid to the said (convertees) and on the basis of the aforesaid financial aid and other kind of temptations, by misusing the poverty of the other Hindu families and their ignorance.” The (converted persons, accused) converted two other accused and thereafter, after taking on Islamic names, “all the three persons together along… Shabbir Bekriwala and Samajbhai Bekriwala started alluring the other Hindu villagers of the village and by giving them the temptation of constructing a new home, food-grain and cash, tempted them to convert to Islam.”

The FIR also stated the accused had promised to give the convertees employment. The court order also noted that the FIR “elaborately stated” the things stated “about the Hindu religion and Hindu Gods” with Justice Desai noting that he does not “deem it appropriate to reproduce the exact version in the order”.

The complainant also stated that in 2018 one of the accused “used to teach him how to chant Kalma by taking him to an Ibadatgah made in the government premises … was taken to Surat one day and by misrepresenting before him, he was asked to give his thumb impression on the said paper which was already typed and thereafter, his name was changed to Salman Vasant Patel and his new Aadhar card was prepared as per the FIR,” the court order notes.

According to the FIR, some of the accused allegedly converted 15 persons to Islam. The order notes that the FIR states the complainant “gathered courage” to file a complaint as he was threatened when he began resisting (the accused). “He came to know that this is a nation wide conspiracy to convert Hindus to Muslims and the same is going on on account of huge financial aid received by them from foreign countries… he was threatened (by the accused)… as they have connections from Kashmir to Pakistan…” the order notes.

The petitioners had submitted that “nature of investigation is absolutely misconceived and misdirected and, therefore, registration of FIR of an offence against the present applicants right from the inception is erroneous” as Section 3A of the 2021 Act invoked in the FIR could not apply to the incident of alleged conversion that took place in the year 2016 and 2018 as there were no complaints against the accused during that time.

One of the petitioners, a Priest (Maulvi) also submitted that the “only material against him till date is the fact that he has imparted education to four to five children of already converted people and that there is no material against him.”

The petitioners had also contended that as per Section 6 previous sanction from District Magistrate before prosecution was mandatory and not acquired by the Bharuch district police. The court order said the Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin had placed on record the order dated July 25, 2022, passed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch whereby sanction was granted to prosecute the accused persons. The court also noted the submission of the Additional AG that the sanction “would come only after filing of the chargesheet and not for the registration of the offence.” The court held it was for the petitioners to “raise the question of the validity of the sanction at the time of the trial” as there was no “reason to interfere with the ongoing trial”.

Referring to the petition of Abdul Adam Patel alias Fefdawala Haji, a UK national, who is native of Nabipur in Bharuch and accused of providing financial assistance for the religious conversion in the case, the HC noted that he had not “shown any willingness to cooperate in the investigation” and “chosen not to remain present…” Stating that the court found no reason to entertain his plea, the order noted that Fefadwala had visited India 25 times before the registration of FIR.

At least 16 persons had been booked in the FIR until April 2022, under Indian Penal Code Sections 152(B)(C)(assertions prejudicial to national interest, 153(A)(1) (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 295(A) (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) as well as 120(B) (criminal conspiracy).

The court order states the observations of the HC are “tentative in nature” and the trial court hearing the case “may not be influenced” by the observations.