"Nothing Convincing Argued On Behalf Of State": Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked Under UP 'Love Jihad' Law

The Allahabad High Court last week granted bail to a man booked under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, popularly known as the 'Love Jihad' law of Uttar Pradesh, noting that nothing convincing had been argued on behalf of the complainant & State to deny him bail.

The Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I was hearing the bail plea of Appellant/Accused Motiram who was booked under Sections - 342, 366, 384, 506 I.P.C. & 3/5 of The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance & 67A I.T. Act.

Earlier, his bail plea had been rejected by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act and therefore, he moved a criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 before the High Court.

He claimed that he had a distinct case from the other co-accused in the matter, who were, allegedly, directly involved in the process of conversion of religion.

It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the only role assigned in the statement of the victim recorded under Section - 161 Cr.P.C. was to the extent of his presence on the spot, when the alleged conversion of the victim was being made.

Except that, it was further contended, there was nothing concrete against the appellant and that being the neighbour of the victim, he had been involved in this case, on account of enmity. 

In this circumstance, the Court noted that he had been in jail March 2021 and observed thus:

"I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal. Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant."

Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court opined that the appellant had made out a case for bail.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order dated 07.04.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant was set aside.

Case title - Motilal @ Motiram v. State of U.P. and Another

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order