Converts as Perpetrators: Gujarat HC Upholds Prosecution in Mass Conversion Case, Refusing to Classify Accused as 'Victims'

AHMEDABAD, Gujarat – In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for the interpretation of anti-conversion laws, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed petitions to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against individuals accused of orchestrating a mass religious conversion, asserting that even those who were once converted can be prosecuted if they subsequently participate in alluring others to change their faith. The decision underscores a critical legal distinction: the act of perpetuating conversion activities negates the claim of being a 'victim' for the purposes of avoiding criminal proceedings.

The order, delivered on October 1, 2025, by a bench of Justice Nirzar S Desai, addressed a batch of petitions filed by several of the 16 accused in a 2021 case involving the alleged conversion of 100 individuals from 37 Hindu families to Islam in Bharuch’s Amod region. The accused, including three who were formerly Hindus, argued that they were themselves victims of conversion and thus could not be prosecuted as offenders.

The High Court decisively rejected this contention. "It cannot be accepted that those persons who are arraigned as accused who are originally Hindus and subsequently were converted to Islam, can be said to be the victims," the Court noted. It reasoned that their alleged subsequent actions created a new legal reality. "Considering the fact that after their conversion to Islam, it is alleged that those persons also indulged into activity of pressurizing and alluring other persons... their further act of converting further people around 100 in numbers of 37 families to Islam would prima facie make out an offence against them."

This judgment firmly establishes that under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003, and associated penal provisions, an individual’s status as a prior convert does not confer immunity from prosecution if they are later accused of illegally inducing others to convert.

Background of the Bharuch Conversion Case

The legal battle stems from an FIR filed on November 14, 2021, by Pravinbhai Vasantbhai Vasava. The complaint details a systematic and organized effort to convert villagers through inducements. Vasava alleged that he was converted in 2018 after being promised financial assistance and was given the name Salman Vasant Patel. He claimed his Aadhaar card was altered through misrepresentation.

The FIR outlines a chain of events where initial converts allegedly became agents for further conversions. It names Shabbirbhai and Samadbhai Bakerywala as key figures who allegedly converted a man named Ajitbhai Vasava (renamed Abdul Aziz Patel) by offering to build him a house. Following his conversion, Abdul Aziz Patel, along with the Bakerywalas, allegedly began alluring other Hindu villagers with promises of housing, food, and cash.

The complaint further alleges a wider conspiracy involving foreign funding, naming Fefdawala Haji Abdullah, a UK-based foreign national, as a source of funds. The accused are booked under a wide array of statutes, including IPC Sections for criminal conspiracy (120B), promoting enmity between groups (153A, 153B), outraging religious feelings (295A), and forgery (466, 467, 468). Charges were also filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Information Technology Act.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, contending that the conversions were voluntary and that their implication in the case was a misconception. However, the High Court, after reviewing the charge-sheet papers and witness statements, found that the allegations were sufficient to establish a prima facie case, warranting a full trial.

The Fine Line Between Victim and Perpetrator

The core legal question before Justice Desai was whether the accused, particularly the three former Hindus, could be considered victims rather than perpetrators. This argument is pivotal, as it seeks to reframe the narrative from one of criminal inducement to one of shared religious experience.

The court’s refusal to accept this defense highlights a crucial aspect of criminal liability in conversion cases. The judgment implies that while an individual might have been induced to convert, any subsequent participation in a similar scheme of inducement against others constitutes a distinct criminal act.

“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... the Court is of the view that conversion of the victims indicates that a prima facie offence is made out,” the order stated.

This reasoning effectively severs the causal link the petitioners sought to establish between their own conversion and their subsequent actions. For the court, the latter is not a consequence of the former but an independent offense that must be adjudicated on its own merits at trial. The court also pointedly dismissed the application of Fefdawala, the UK-based accused, on the grounds of his non-cooperation with the investigation, noting he had not returned to India since the case was registered despite 25 prior visits.

Judicial Scrutiny of Conversion Methods

The allegations in the Bharuch case mirror patterns seen in other parts of the country, where inducement is often the central element differentiating legal conversion from a criminal offense. A separate, ongoing investigation in Nadiad, Gujarat, into a Christian conversion racket allegedly run by Steven McWan, provides a comparative lens. In that case, the accused allegedly used a trust, foreign funding, and social media to lure vulnerable individuals with claims of "miraculous healings," anti-idolatry propaganda, and charitable activities as a cover.

These cases collectively bring into focus the methods authorities scrutinize when investigating illegal conversions: 1. Financial and Material Allurement: Promises of cash, housing, jobs, or food. 2. Misrepresentation and Coercion: Using deceptive means to obtain consent or threatening individuals. 3. Exploitation of Vulnerability: Targeting the poor, sick, or marginalized with promises of divine intervention or material aid. 4. Organized Networks and Funding: The presence of structured organizations, often with foreign financial backing, to facilitate conversions on a larger scale.

The Gujarat High Court's decision to allow the trial to proceed indicates its willingness to let the prosecution present evidence on these very points, reinforcing that the "freedom of religion" does not extend to the freedom to induce conversion through prohibited means.

Implications for Legal Practitioners

This ruling serves as a vital precedent for legal professionals handling cases under state-level Freedom of Religion Acts. Key takeaways include:

• Prima Facie Standard for Quashing: The judgment reinforces the high threshold required to quash an FIR, especially when the allegations, if proven, clearly constitute cognizable offenses. The court will not delve into a mini-trial at the quashing stage.
• Defense of 'Victimhood' is Limited: An accused cannot use their own past conversion as a shield against allegations of perpetrating illegal conversions. The focus remains on their specific actions as detailed in the FIR and investigation.
• The Actus Reus of Inducement: The material act of offering allurements is the central element. The court’s emphasis on the "act of influencing and pressurizing and alluring" clarifies that this is the prosecutable conduct, irrespective of the accused's personal religious history.

The decision is also consonant with the Supreme Court's broader guidance on judicial restraint. In a recent, unrelated matter ( P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board ), the Supreme Court cautioned High Courts against conducting "fishing and roving enquiries" or traveling beyond the scope of a writ petition, as it could render litigants "worse off than what they were." In the Gujarat case, by refusing to interfere and quash the FIR, the High Court has adhered to the principle of allowing the investigative and trial process to run its course, thereby avoiding a premature determination of facts and guilt.

As the case proceeds to trial, it will be closely watched for its potential to further delineate the legal boundaries of religious propagation and the evidentiary standards required to prove illegal conversion through allurement and coercion.