Gujarat High Court Rejects Plea for Discharge in Alleged Village-Wide Forced Conversion Plot

In a significant ruling on religious conversion laws, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissed a criminal revision application by five men challenging their denial of discharge in a high-profile case of alleged forced conversions targeting Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities. Justice Gita Gopi , in her order dated March 30, 2026, emphasized that revisional courts cannot conduct a "mini-trial" and must only assess if a prima facie case exists based on the charge-sheet and documents.

The case, originating from a 2021 FIR at Amod Police Station in Bharuch, underscores tensions over religious conversions in areas with sizable SC/ST populations.

Roots in Bharuch: A Scheme to Convert an Entire Village?

The controversy erupted in Special Atrocity Case No. 04 of 2022 before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch. The FIR invoked Section 4 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 (punishing forcible conversions), alongside IPC Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 153B(1)(c) (prejudicial imputations to national integration), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) . Later, the trial court added IPC Sections 153A (promoting enmity), 466, 467, 471 (forgery) , and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Sections 3(2)(5-A) and 3(2)(5) via an order on November 30, 2021.

Prosecutors alleged a "large-scale conspiracy" to convert an entire village by luring vulnerable SC/ST members with cash, gifts, threats, and even fraudulent marriages. Evidence included witness statements from over 20 individuals, WhatsApp chats, viral videos, and lectures that reportedly inflamed Hindu sentiments and sowed communal discord. Funding traces reportedly led overseas, with forged Aadhaar cards and electronic records used to mask conversions.

The petitioners— Yusufbhai Jivanbhai Patel @ Mahendrabhai Jivabhai Vasava (a converted Hindu), Ayub Barkat Patel , Ibrahim Puna Patel , Yakub Ibrahim Shankar , and Rizwan Mehboobhai Patel —were not in the initial FIR but added during investigation.

Petitioners' Defense: Victims of Sensationalism and False Charges

Represented by advocates Muhammad Quasim Vora and Umarfaruk M. Kharadi , the applicants argued no specific roles were attributed to them, rendering their implication an "abuse of process." They claimed the charge-sheet bypassed required procedures under BNSS Section 189 , that six key persons were witnesses not accused, and that innocents were dragged in to sensationalize the issue under BNSS Sections 438 and 442 (anticipatory bail and revision).

Prosecution Strikes Back: Web of Evidence Ties All Accused

Additional Public Prosecutor Bhargav Pandya countered with detailed witness testimonies linking each petitioner. For instance:

  • Converted petitioners (Nos. 1-3) were accused of direct involvement in threats, economic inducements, and a fraudulent marriage where a girl was allegedly lured and converted.
  • Petitioner No. 4 (Yakub) delivered inflammatory lectures and allured SC/ST members with cash and kind.
  • Petitioner No. 5 (Rizwan) conspired in funding conversions, including overseas money.

Over 20 witnesses, including complainant Pravin Vasantbhai Vasava , corroborated forcible conversions, threats, and communal incitement via digital evidence.

No Mini-Trial Allowed: Court's Razor-Sharp Legal Lens

Justice Gopi navigated the discharge stage's narrow scope, drawing on Supreme Court precedents:

  • State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 and State v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi (2025 INSC 758) : Magistrates must limit scrutiny to the final report and documents.
  • State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj (1997) 4 SCC 393 : At charge-framing (analogous to BNSS equivalents of CrPC 227/228), courts sift evidence only to check if facts disclose offence ingredients—no deep credibility probe.

The bench found prima facie material in witness statements and charge-sheet materials sufficient to proceed, noting forged documents and SC/ST threats.

"In the revisional jurisdiction, the Court has the authority to only find out whether there is prima-facie case against the applicant/s. The Court cannot run a mini trial to find out the credibility and authenticity of the statements of the witnesses and the evidence collected by the investigating officer."

Spotlight Quotes: Justice Gita Gopi's Key Observations

  • On evidence sufficiency : "Having regard to the statements of the witnesses as referred by learned APP and the charge-sheet which has been filed against the present applicants, prima-facie there is a case as alleged under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003."
  • Trial court deference : "The prima-facie satisfaction of the trial Court Judge to come to the conclusion of sufficiency of material to frame the charge is the real test."
  • Limited judicial role : "The Court therefore, need not dwell all the materials on record and minutely deal with each of the statements and proof."

Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed, Trial to Proceed

The revision application ( R/CR.RA/2/2025 ) was "devoid of merits" and rejected outright. This sends the accused back to trial, reinforcing that discharge petitions demand strong grounds at this juncture.

The ruling signals stricter scrutiny of conversion-related claims, especially involving vulnerable groups, potentially deterring similar pleas while prioritizing full trials for robust evidence. It aligns with Gujarat's firm stance on anti-conversion laws amid rising communal sensitivities.