Supreme Court Steps In: Grants bail to man arrested under Uttarakhand Anti-Conversion Law in interfaith marriage case

Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Uttaranchal High Court, which had rejected the bail application of a Muslim man arrested by under the Uttarakhand anti-conversion law following his marriage to a Hindu woman, the division bench of BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. granted bail to the accused.

Background

The accused had been booked for the crime with respect to offences punishable under Sections 3 read with Section 5 of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and under Sections 318(4) and 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. An application seeking regular bail was rejected by the High Court vide impugned order, following which the accused preferred the instant appeal. By order dated 04-04-2025, this Court issued notice to the respondent.

The accused contended that a frivolous complaint had been lodged against him solely because he was married to a woman following a different faith. He submitted that the marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage, with facts known to both sides. The families had voluntarily decided to arrange the marriage of the accused to the woman. However, soon after the marriage, certain persons and organizations objected to the union, which resulted in the first information report being lodged against the accused. The accused had been in jail for nearly six months. Although the chargesheet had been filed, considering the nature of the allegations against the accused, he was entitled to the relief of bail by setting aside the impugned order.

The accused further submitted that if he were released on bail, he and his wife would possibly reside separately from their families and continue to live peacefully without any hindrance. For that reason, he prayed for bail.

Per contra, the State, with reference to his counter affidavit, submitted that there was no merit in the appeal, and it should be dismissed.

Analysis and Decision

The Court observed that the State could not object to the accused and his wife residing together, as their marriage had been conducted with the consent of their respective parents and families. In the circumstances, the Court found this to be an appropriate case for granting bail to the accused arrested under the Uttarakhand anti-conversion law.

The Court also made it clear that the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the accused would not prevent him and his wife from residing together by their own choice.

Considering the facts on record, the Court held that the case for bail was made out. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the accused to be produced before the Trial Court at the earliest, and the Trial Court to release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings.

It was further directed that the accused should fully cooperate in the ensuing trial and should not misuse his liberty. Any violation of the conditions would lead to cancellation of the bail granted.

With these directions, criminal appeal was allowed.