Allahabad High Court Questions Validity of FIR in Alleged Religious Conversion Case, Grants Time for State Response

Case Overview

In a significant development involving allegations of unlawful religious conversion, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has issued an interim order in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by Ram Kewal Bharti @ Bablu and others. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 0147 of 2025, dated August 17, 2025, registered at Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur, under Sections 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, as well as Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The case highlights tensions around religious practices, preaching, and the strict application of anti-conversion laws.

The bench, comprising Justices Abdul Moin and Babita Rani, heard arguments on the petition and noted prima facie irregularities in the FIR's lodging and subsequent investigations. The FIR was filed by complainant Manoj Kumar Singh, who alleged that the petitioners were conducting a prayer meeting, distributing Bibles to Dalits and poor individuals including women and children, and attempting conversions through preaching Christian tenets via an LED screen in their verandah.

Key Arguments Presented

The petitioners' counsel, Upendra Kumar Sagar, argued that the FIR is patently false and lacks substantive evidence of any conversion or attempt thereof. He emphasized that the complaint stems merely from the distribution of religious texts and preaching, which do not constitute offenses under the law. No individual had come forward at the time of the FIR to claim coercion, allurement, or actual conversion, making the invocation of the special UP Act unjustified.

On behalf of the State, the Assistant Government Advocate (AGA), relying on instructions, pointed to a supplementary statement recorded from one alleged victim, Sri Ram Dev, on October 25, 2025—over two months after the FIR. In this statement, Ram Dev claimed allurement to change religion, contrasting his initial statement on September 4, 2025, where no such allegation was made. The AGA also referenced a similar statement from Ram Dev's wife, Smt. Nisha, recorded on the same later date.

The court scrutinized these delays, questioning the credibility and timing of the supplementary statements. It observed that the petitioners were arrested immediately on the day of the FIR (August 17, 2025), despite the absence of any contemporaneous victim testimony supporting the conversion charges.

Court's Observations and Legal Precedents

Drawing on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajendra Bihari Lal and another v. State of U.P. and others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265), the bench underscored that the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, is a special statute requiring strict adherence to its provisions. Section 3(1) of the Act prohibits conversion or attempts at conversion through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraud, but explicitly requires involvement of a "person" alleging such acts. Section 5(1) prescribes punishment for violations of Section 3.

The court clarified that neither distributing Bibles nor preaching religious tenets is criminalized under the Act or elsewhere. Pivotal excerpts from the judgment highlight this:

> "From perusal of the FIR it does not emerge that at the time of lodging of the FIR i.e. on 17.08.2025 any person had come forward indicating that he had been converted to any other religion. The FIR only indicates about an LED having been recovered and Bibles being allegedly distributed."

> "Thus, the sine-qua-non to invocation of Section 3 of the Act, 2021 prima facie would be coming forward of a 'person' to allege that either he has been converted to any other religion or is being coerced or given some allurement to convert to some other religion which is patently missing at the time of lodging of the FIR."

The bench also addressed the BNS charges: Section 351(3) for criminal intimidation and Section 352 for intentional insult provoking breach of peace. It questioned how these apply when the complainant allegedly intruded into the petitioners' home with others, potentially justifying the petitioners' resistance.

Further, the court flagged the complainant's unexplained prior knowledge of the prayer meeting and his mobilization of a group, directing him (as respondent No. 4) to explain these in his counter affidavit, along with any criminal history.

Final Order and Implications

While stopping short of an immediate quashing, the court granted the State four weeks to file a counter affidavit, with the petitioners given two weeks to reply. Notice was issued to respondent No. 4 (the complainant), who must also submit a counter affidavit addressing specific queries within the same timeframe. The matter is listed for fresh hearing after the expiry of this period, given the short question of law involved.

This interim order signals judicial caution in anti-conversion cases, emphasizing that FIRs under special Acts like the 2021 UP law cannot be lodged mechanically without prima facie evidence of a victim's allegation. It protects against potential misuse of such provisions, safeguarding life and liberty, and could set a precedent for similar petitions challenging delayed or inconsistent witness statements. For religious practitioners and minority communities, the ruling underscores the boundaries between lawful evangelism and prohibited proselytization, potentially influencing how such complaints are investigated in Uttar Pradesh.

The case remains pending, with implications for balancing religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution against state regulations on conversions.