© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Allahabad High Court ruling: Ordering the release of a man arrested under the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, the Allahabad High Court has said state authorities are falling and scrambling over each other to score brownie points to take action.
The court also ordered that the FIR lodged against him and four other persons in Bahraich under the anti-conversion law be quashed. The Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani also imposed a cost of Rs 75,000 on the State.
The court also stated that the State was free to take action against erring officials. “This petition is a glaring example of state authorities falling and scrambling over each other in order to score brownie points on the basis of the FIR…,” the court said in its October 30 order.
The five persons had approached the High Court, seeking quashing of the FIR after they were booked by the police on a complaint by a man, alleging that they were running a “conversion racket”.
It is stated that when the woman found out about the FIR, she returned home of her own accord. She initially recorded her statement under BNSS Section 180, following which the Investigating Officer added charges under BNS sections 316(2) (criminal breach of trust) and 317(2) (stolen property), and Section 3(1)(5) of the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
One of the five accused was subsequently arrested on September 18. As per the court records and the lawyers, it was alleged that the woman had left at the instigation of the accused, who were “involved in religious conversions”.
However, on September 19, the woman recorded another statement (under BNSS Section 183), categorically stating that she had left her home voluntarily due to regular domestic abuse by her husband. In this statement, she did not allege any religious conversion, and she returned all her jewellery to the police.
Her lawyer, later in the High Court, also claimed that her earlier statement was made under threats and coercion from her husband and in-laws.
Noting this, the court observed, “From the statement of respondent no. 5 (dated 19.09.2025), it is apparent that she has stated to have gone on her own accord to see her daughter in Delhi and returned. Thus, the offence as per BNS Section 140 is clearly not made out.”
“However, it is not understood that when on 19.09.2025, respondent no. 5 has given a statement under Section 183 BNSS… from which it emerges that none of the offences as prescribed under the Act of 2021 or Sections 140, 316(2) and 317(2) of BNS are said to have been committed by the petitioners, as to why corrective action was not taken by the authorities on their own accord…,” the court said in the order.
“Further, keeping in view the statement as given by respondent no. 5, it is apparent that the FIR has been lodged under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 2021 and Section 140 of the BNS. without any offence in fact being committed by the petitioners… as specifically stated by the victim, respondent no. 5. It is thus apparent that a false FIR has been lodged by respondent no. 4 under the Act, 2021,” the court said.
It said, consequently, petitioner no. 1 should have been released. “… However, the said course of action was also not resorted to by the authorities for reasons best known and petitioner no. 1 is continuing to languish in jail even at the time of dictating this order,” it said.
“The court, having gone through the entire records… proceeds to exercise powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings,” it observed.
“Next aspect which has to be considered by the Court is as to whether in the facts of the case, some exemplary cost is to be imposed considering the fact that for no fault of his, petitioner no. 1 is incarcerated in jail… and the fact that respondent authorities had an option of rectifying themselves…,” the court said.
“…. This, thus, compels this court to award an exemplary cost of Rs 75,000 on the State of Uttar Pradesh, of which Rs 50,000 would be paid to the petitioner no. 1 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order… and remaining Rs 25,000 would be deposited with the Legal Aid Services of this Court within the aforesaid period of time. It will be open to the State to proceed against erring official(s), including respondent no. 4.”
“Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed with costs as aforesaid. Impugned FIR… is quashed. Consequences to follow. Petitioner no.1 shall immediately be released if not wanted in any other case,” the court ordered.
