Supreme Court Confirms Interim Anticipatory Bail Granted To 'SHUATS' VC, Director & Others In Mass Religious Conversion Case

The Supreme Court today confirmed the interim protection relief granted to Vice Chancellor Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, Director Vinod Bihari Lal and others in the SHUATS (formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute) mass religious conversion case.

The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a batch of pleas in connection with the unlawful conversion allegations against SHUATS (Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences), wherein besides anticipatory bail, reliefs of quashing of FIRs and transfer/consolidation of cases were sought.

After being informed by UP Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad that in the case underlying the five anticipatory bail pleas (ie FIR No.224/2022, PS Kotwali), chargesheet had been filed without arrest, the Court passed its order confirming interim protection. At the same time, it clarified that confirmation of the interim relief shall not have a bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

Besides Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal and Vinod Bihari Lal, interim protection has been confirmed for Parminder Singh, Mathew Samuel and Rev. Paul Sigamony Rajamony.

To recapitulate facts of the case, an FIR was lodged in April, 2022 on complaint by one Himanshu Dixit that about 90 persons of Hindu religion had been congregated at Evangelical Church of India, Hariharganj, Fatehpur for the purpose of conversion to Christianity. As per allegations, they were unduly influenced, coerced and lured by playing fraud and promise of easy money, etc.

On receiving the information, government officers approached the place and interrogated the pastor Vijay Massiah, who allegedly disclosed that the process for conversion was going on for the last 34 days and shall be completed within 40 days.  An FIR was registered under Sections 153A/506/420/467/468/471/34 IPC and Sections 3/5(1) of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, in which 35 persons were named and 20 were unnamed.

When the SHUATS VC and Director, who were not named in the FIR, approached the Allahabad High Court for anticipatory bail, their pleas were dismissed, noting that they were influential persons and their intent behind the charitable works appeared to be dubious. The concerned judge further observed that the two could not claim parity with other persons who had been released on anticipatory bail.

Against the Allahabad High Court order, the VC-Director duo moved the top Court. When the matter was mentioned before a CJI DY Chandrachud-led Bench in March, 2023, notice came to be issued to State of Uttar Pradesh and arrest of the two accused was stayed pending further orders. This relief of interim protection was extended by the Supreme Court in July, 2023.

As on date, there are 14 petitions emanating from 5 FIRs registered in the case, which are pending before the Supreme Court and were listed today. While the Court disposed of the anticipatory bail pleas, the other petitions were posted to a date after 6 weeks.

Courtroom Exchange

On status of investigation

Garima Prashad: Officially, investigation is complete in FIR No.224 (the first FIR)...in the remaining, chargesheets have been filed where the cognizance is pending...in one case ie 47/2023, charges have been framed

Justice Pardiwala: Once the chargesheet is filed in the court, cognizance is deemed to have been taken

On petitioners' grievances

Sr Adv CU Singh: Multiple FIRs were filed a year later of the same incident of 14 April 2022...he has gone for quashing and for effective orders, which was rejected and therefore we are before your Lordships

Sr Adv Mukta Gupta: My three quashing petitions were dismissed in the FIR registered after 1 year on the same cause of action

Sr Adv Siddharth Dave: What has happened is, we approached your Lordships in one FIR...moment we get protection by your Lordships, there is subsequent FIR...then another FIR, then another FIR.. we[...] for clubbing of those FIRs...after orders are passed, other FIRs are registered...every time we have to keep coming before your Lordships for consolidation

AAG Prashad (countering): My learned friend is not correct

SA Dave: One second...there is multiplicity of writ petitions that are there...your Lordships have been pleased to protect us in all those writ petitions and have granted stay of our arrest in those writ petitions

Sr Adv Siddharth Aggarwal: Infact, the persons who have recorded their 161 statements in the first FIR become the first informant in the second FIR

Justice Pardiwala: What should we do today?

SA Gupta: If 5 matters (anticipatory bail) go away, it would be easier to consolidate rest

Order Passed

After hearing the parties, Justice Pardiwala dictated the order as follows:

"We are in a position to dispose of 5 petitions referred to above in the wake of some developments. The development is that in connection with FIR 224/2022, the investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been filed. The filing of the chargesheet must have culminated now in a criminal case pending before a particular court. Since chargesheet has been filed, there is no question now of effecting any arrest of any of the accused of the above-referred 5 petitions. In such circumstances, there is no good reason now to adjudicate in these 5 petitions so far as the plea for anticipatory bail is concerned. Subject to the right of either going for quashing or discharge, the issue of anticipatory bail comes to an end. We take notice of the fact that all throughout they were protected by this Court. The interim protection which was earlier granted now stands confirmed".

On AAG Prashad expressing an apprehension that the order might prejudice the prosecution/trial, the Bench added,

"We need not clarify that grant of anticipatory bail to an accused for a particular offence has nothing to do with the merits of the prosecution case so far as trial is concerned. The trial will proceed in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the guilt [...] of the accused has to be determined on the basis of the evidence that may be led in course of the trial."

Appearance for petitioners/original accused: Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave (for Rajendra Bihari Lal and Vinod Bihar Lal), CU Singh (for Mathew Samuel, Salma Begum, Rishi Barnabas and others), Siddharth Aggarwal, Mukta Gupta (for Teppa Steve Daniel Rao)

Appearance for respondents/State: AAG Garima Prashad alongwith AoRs Adarsh Upadhyay & DIvyanshu Sahay

Case Title: VINOD BIHARI LAL Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 3210/2023 (and connected matters)

Click Here To Read/Download Order