The Allahabad High Court on December 17, 2025 rejected the bail plea of Rihan, an accused in a violence case linked to a prohibited religious gathering in Bareilly, holding that raising the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda” amounts to a challenge to the sovereignty and integrity of India and the authority of its legal system.

A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal declined to grant bail in a case involving allegations of large-scale violence, injuries to police personnel, and damage to public and private property following an unlawful assembly convened despite prohibitory orders being in force.

The case arises from an FIR registered on May 26, 2025 at Kotwali police station, Bareilly, alleging that the president of the Ittefaq Minnat Council, Maulana Taukir Raza, along with other leaders including Nadeem Khan, had called upon members of the Muslim community to assemble after namaz at the grounds of Islamia Inter College. The FIR was registered under Sections 109(1), 109(2), 118(2), 121(1), 189(5), 191(2), 191(3), 195(1), 196(1), 196(2), 223, 310(2), 324(5), 324(6), 61(2), 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

According to the prosecution, police had prior information about the call for the gathering, and prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were in force, banning the assembly of more than five persons. Despite police warnings, a crowd of around 500 people allegedly gathered in the Biharipur area.

The FIR alleged that the crowd raised slogans against the State and repeatedly chanted “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda”. When police personnel attempted to stop the procession and enforce prohibitory orders, the situation allegedly escalated into violence, with the crowd resorting to stone pelting, firing, and throwing petrol bombs. Several police personnel were injured, and multiple police and private vehicles were damaged.

Seven persons, including Rihan, were arrested at the spot. Based on their statements, CCTV footage, and independent witnesses, police later named 25 accused and around 1,700 unknown persons in the FIR.

Seeking bail, Rihan contended that he had been falsely implicated and claimed that he was not arrested from the spot but from his home. He further argued that he had no prior criminal history and that there was no incriminating material linking him to the alleged violence.

The State strongly opposed the bail plea. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the acts attributed to Rihan were not merely law-and-order issues but offences against the State. It was argued that the slogan raised by the crowd advocated a form of punishment not recognised under Indian law and reflected a complete disregard for the constitutional and legal framework.

In its detailed order, the High Court examined the scheme of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to religion and public order. The court observed that Indian criminal law already provides punishment for deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings or promote enmity between communities, and that advocating beheading as punishment amounted to incitement and a direct challenge to the rule of law.

The court noted that while religious slogans are common across faiths, they cross into criminality when used to intimidate, incite violence, or undermine constitutional authority. It held that the slogan in question was not rooted in religious texts but was used to provoke and threaten, thereby attracting penal consequences.

“Chanting the slogan ‘gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda’, which provides punishment of beheading for disrespecting the Nabi (Prophet) amounts to challenging the sovereignty and integrity of India and also the Indian legal system… If a person, instead of respecting the law framed under the Indian Constitution, attempts to challenge the law or promotes or incites people to commit an offence in the garb of providing punishment, (he) should be dealt with strictly,” Justice Deshwal observed.

The judge further emphasised that the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda” “does not have any trace in the Quran or any other religious text belonging to Muslims, still this slogan is being used widely by several Muslim persons without knowing its correct meaning and effect.”

Finding sufficient material in the case diary to show that Rihan was part of the unlawful assembly that raised objectionable slogans, assaulted police personnel, and caused damage to property, the High Court concluded that no case for bail was made out and rejected the application.

Source: LawBeat

The post “Sar Tan Se Juda Slogan Challenges India’s Sovereignty, Rule of Law”: Allahabad High Court Says appeared first on The Commune.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that if a religious conversion is found to be illegal, a marriage based on it will automatically be invalid, and the couple cannot be recognised as married in the eyes of law.

Justice Saurabh Srivastava delivered the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Bin Qasim alias Akbar, who had sought protection for his marital life with Jainab Parveen alias Chandrakanta. The court, however, clarified that the petitioners were free to perform marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that Qasim is a Muslim and Chandrakanta was originally Hindu. On February 22, 2025, Chandrakanta accepted Islam, and a certificate was allegedly issued by Khanqahe Alia Arifia. The couple later solemnised their marriage under Muslim law on 26 May 2025 and obtained a certificate from a Quazi.

The State’s counsel opposed the plea, arguing that the conversion certificate was forged. The secretary and manager of Jamia Arifia, Saiyed Sarawan, Kaushambi, had stated in a reply that the institution had not issued the certificate on the said date.

Taking note of this, the court observed: “After hearing rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the entire records, one thing is clear, that conversion on a forged document cannot determine any of the essential ingredients as mentioned in the Uttar Pradesh Unlawful Conversion Act.”

The court further held: “Such, marriage solemnised between the petitioners is also not sustainable in the eyes of law since as per the Muslim Law, marriage is a contract between the follower and believer of the same religion. Once, the conversion in respect of Petitioner No 2 (Chandrakanta) is illegal, both the petitioners cannot be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of law.”

While striking down the marriage, the bench directed the couple to register under the Special Marriage Act, which does not require conversion. It also ordered that Petitioner No 2 be placed in a women’s protection home in Prayagraj until the marriage is registered, as she was unwilling to stay with her parents.

The court also imposed an exemplary cost of ₹25,000 on the counsel for the petitioners, directing that it be deposited in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre within 15 days.

(With inputs from Deccan Chronicle)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Allahabad High Court Rules “Marriage Based On Illegal Conversion Automatically Invalid” appeared first on The Commune.

The Allahabad High Court will on Monday take up the Sambhal Jama Masjid violence case, following a petition filed by mosque committee Chairman Zafar Ali challenging the police charge sheet. Ali has moved the trial court seeking quashing of the charge sheet filed in connection with the clashes that erupted during the survey of the Sambhal Jama Masjid on November 24, 2024.

His name surfaced during the investigation, leading to his arrest and subsequent imprisonment. On July 24, the High Court granted him bail. The matter is listed before a single bench of Justice Sameer Jain, which is expected to hear the case later in the day. The development comes in the backdrop of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Uttar Pradesh Police filing a mammoth charge sheet running over 4,400 pages across six cases linked to the deadly violence.

Officials announced that Shariq Satha, a resident of Sambhal, is believed to be the mastermind behind the riots. The violence resulted in five deaths and many injuries. Satha, who allegedly operated a car theft ring involving over 300 stolen vehicles from the Delhi-NCR region, has also been connected to underworld figure Dawood Ibrahim and Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI.

Investigators revealed that he fled India using a forged passport. Investigators uncovered a series of suspicious financial transactions linked to account holders in Sambhal, along with the discovery of foreign-manufactured cartridges at the sites of the clashes. Police reported that Satha’s close associates were responsible for the gunfire that resulted in the deaths of four victims.

However, there was no First Information Report (FIR) filed regarding the fifth death, raising additional questions. The charge sheet has named Samajwadi Party MP Ziaur Rahman Barq and the son of local MLA Iqbal Mahmood among the accused. In total, 37 individuals have been specifically identified, while an additional 3,750 people are accused but remain unnamed in connection with the violence.

-IANS

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Allahabad High Court To Hear Mosque Panel Plea In Sambhal Jama Masjid Violence Case appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Friday (8 August 2025) recalled its unprecedented 4 August 2025 order that had barred an Allahabad High Court judge from hearing criminal cases until his retirement. The recall came after criticism from within the judiciary, including a letter signed by 13 high court judges urging the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to defy the directive.

The August 4 order, passed by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, had taken strong exception to an order by Justice Prashant Kumar refusing to quash a criminal complaint in what the apex court deemed a purely civil dispute. Calling Justice Kumar’s ruling one of the “worst and most erroneous” they had seen, the bench had directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to remove him from all criminal cases and make him sit with a senior judge.

High Court judge Justice Arindam Sinha, in a letter to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali signed by 12 other judges, wrote that the August 4 order was “made without direction for issuance of notice and contains scathing remarks on apparently baseless findings against the learned judge.” The letter sought a full court meeting to resolve that the high court “will not comply with the August 4 order since the Supreme Court does not have administration superintendence over High Courts” and to record “anguish over the tone and tenor of the order.”

Case Background

The dispute arose from a complaint by Lalita Textiles alleging that M/S Shikhar Chemicals had failed to pay ₹4.59 lakh from a ₹52.34 lakh thread supply. After a magisterial court issued summons, the company moved the high court, arguing the matter was civil in nature. Justice Kumar refused to quash the summons, writing:

“O.P. no.2 appears to be a very small business firm and for him, the aforesaid amount along with interest is a huge amount. In case, subject to filing civil suit, O.P. no.2 will not be in position to pursue the civil litigation. In case, O.P. no.2 files a civil suit firstly, it will take years for it to see any ray of hope and secondly, he will have to put more money to pursue the litigation. To be more precise it would seem like good money chasing bad money. If this Court allows the matter to be referred to civil court on account of civil dispute between the parties, it would amount to travesty of justice and O.P. no.2 would suffer irreparable loss and he might even not be in a position to emerge from the financial constraints to pursue the matter.”

The Supreme Court described these findings as “shocking.” The August 4 order stated, “The judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of balance amount would be very unreasonable, as a civil suit may take a long time before it is decided. Therefore, complainant should be permitted to institute a criminal proceedings before the purpose of recovery of balance amount. This is the understanding of a high court judge that, even ultimately, rightly or wrongly, if the accused is convicted, the trial court will award him the balance amount.

The findings recorded in para. 12 are shocking. We are left with no other option than to set aside the order even without issuing notice to the Respondents. In the result, we partly allow the petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. We remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the criminal miscellaneous application. We request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court to assign this matter to any other judge of the High Court.”

The bench had further ordered:

“We further request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to immediately withdraw the present determination of the concerned judge. The concerned judge should be made to sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior of the High Court. In any view of the matter, the concerned judge should not be assigned any criminal determination till he demits office. If at all, he is to be to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination.”

CJI’s Intervention and Recall

Following backlash, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai wrote to Justice Pardiwala’s bench requesting reconsideration. When the matter was re-listed, Justice Pardiwala told the court, “We have received an undated letter from the hon’ble Chief Justice of India requesting the reconsideration of the observations in paras… In such circumstances, we directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for considering the request made by the Chief Justice of India.”

Pronouncing the fresh order, Justice Pardiwala said, “At the outset, we must clarify that our intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned Judge. We would not even think of doing so. However, when the matters cross a threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this Court to intervene even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.”

The bench deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 of the August 4 order, leaving the matter to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, while emphasising, “We reiterate, whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity and the authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country. It is not just a matter of error or mistake by the judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. We were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and to protect the honour and dignity of the institution.”

“For 90% of the litigants in the country, the High Court is the final Court of Justice. Only the remaining 10% can afford to approach the Supreme Court… In any view of the matter, since a request in writing has been received from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and in due deference to the same, we hereby delete para 25 and 26 from our order dated 4th August 2025. The order be corrected accordingly. While we are deleting the paragraphs, we leave it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to now look into the matter. We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster.”

The bench maintained that the impugned high court order was “perverse” and “illegal,” adding, “We hope that in future, we may not have to come across such perverse and unjust order from any High Court. The endeavour of the High Court should always be to uphold the rule of law and to maintain institutional credibility. If the rule of law is not maintained or protected within the Court itself, then that would be the end of the entire justice system of the Country. The Judges at any level are expected to work efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always try and endeavour to fulfil their constitutional oath.”

(With inputs from Live Law)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Supreme Court Recalls Order Ousting Allahabad High Court Judge From Criminal Cases appeared first on The Commune.

On 26 March 2025, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a contentious ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which stated that forcibly grabbing a minor girl’s breasts, untying her pyjama drawstring, and attempting to drag her under a culvert did not amount to an attempt to rape.

A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih will review the High Court’s decision and has already expressed strong disapproval. The Supreme Court remarked, “Some observations in the impugned judgment, particularly in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26, reflect a complete lack of sensitivity on the part of the author.”

What Did Allahabad High Court Ruled? 

In a shocking ruling, the Allahabad High Court recently on 17  March by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, modified charges against two accused in a sexual assault case involving an 11-year-old girl. The accused were initially charged with attempted rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, the court ruled that their actions—grabbing the victim’s breasts, breaking her pyjama string, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert—did not constitute an attempt to rape.

Instead, the court described the act as “aggravated sexual assault” and directed that the accused be tried under Section 354-B of the IPC (assault with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act. The court emphasized that for an attempt to rape charge, the prosecution must prove that the accused had gone “beyond the stage of preparation.”

This novel interpretation ignores the sheer brutality of the act and instead creates an artificial distinction between intent and execution. The accused will now face less severe charges, sending a troubling message about the legal threshold for attempted rape.

Earlier, on 24 March, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Allahabad High Court’s ruling.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Grabbing A Minor’s Breasts Isn’t Attempt To Rape?” – Supreme Court Slams Allahabad HC, Halts Ruling appeared first on The Commune.

The Allahabad High Court has criticized Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of Alt News and self-proclaimed fact-checker, for his motives behind the social media posts related to an alleged speech by Yati Narsinghanand. The court questioned why Zubair used the microblogging site X instead of filing a case, accusing him of inciting “social disharmony.” This came in response to a plea filed by Zubair challenging the FIR, which accuses him of promoting enmity through his posts.

A division bench, led by Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, observed that Zubair’s actions contributed to social unrest. Justice Varma commented, “If this person (Narsinghanand) is making controversial statements, shouldn’t you file an FIR rather than escalate the situation?” He added, “If you don’t like the speech, file an FIR, instead of using social media to create further unrest.”

Justice Varma expressed frustration that Zubair had chosen social media to amplify the alleged speech instead of pursuing legal channels. He remarked, “Come to the court. Why create social disharmony through social media? A glance at your tweet shows you are inciting unrest.” Zubair’s lawyer argued that Zubair was exercising his “constitutional right to freedom of speech” by highlighting the speech, claiming he was unaware of the FIR filed against Narsinghanand just hours before his post.

Justice Varma was unconvinced by the defence, questioning whether social media could replace legal actions. He asked, “Is there any law that permits someone to use Twitter instead of approaching the court?”

The Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General (AAG) argued that Zubair had distorted Narsinghanand’s remarks to provoke unrest. The AAG noted that freedom of speech is not absolute and can be limited under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. He also informed the court that a lookout notice had been issued against Zubair.

FIR Against Zubair

The FIR against Zubair was filed following a complaint from Udita Tyagi, the general secretary of the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust. Tyagi accused Zubair of spreading enmity through his social media posts, particularly a tweet on October 3rd that featured edited clips of Narsinghanand’s speech, intended to incite violence.

Previously, on 3 December 2024, a bench led by Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar had declined to hear the case, referring it to another bench. The FIR includes charges under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity, following Zubair’s tweet. Tyagi’s complaint further alleges that Zubair’s post, featuring manipulated video clips of Narsinghanand’s controversial remarks about Prophet Muhammad, incited extremist views against the priest.

Tyagi also accused Zubair, along with Asaduddin Owaisi and Arshad Madani, of inciting violent protests at Dasna Devi Mandi. The complaint led to charges under various sections of the BNS, including inciting animosity on religious grounds, creating false evidence, and defamation. Section 152 was later added to the FIR. The next hearing is scheduled for 20 December 2024.

(With Inputs From Live Law)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post ‘File FIR, Why Create Social Disharmony Through Social Media?’ Allahabad HC Questions Alleged Fact-Checker Mohammed Zubair’s Intentions appeared first on The Commune.

In a significant ruling on Krishna Janmabhoomi case, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition from the Muslim community on 1 August 2024 that challenged the validity of 18 lawsuits filed by Hindus seeking the removal of a mosque located within a 13.37-acre complex shared with the Katra Keshav Dev temple.

The court ruled that all 18 lawsuits were valid, allowing them to proceed based on their merits. These lawsuits were not barred by the Limitation Act or the Places of Worship Act, among others, the court said.

This ruling counters the main argument of the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah (Mathura). The argument said the ongoing lawsuits were prohibited under the Places of Worship Act of 1991, the Limitation Act of 1963, and the Specific Relief Act of 1963.

Waqf Board provisions

Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, representing the Muslim side, argued that the provisions of the Waqf Board should apply and that the Waqf tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter.

In response, the Hindu plaintiffs contended that no property registered as Shah Idgah was in government records. They further argued if it were a Waqf property, the Waqf Board should reveal the identity of the property’s donor.

Justice Mayank Kumar Jain announced the ruling about two months after the bench reserved its decision on 6 June 2024. The next hearing is on 12 August 2024.

Dispute Background

The controversy centres around the Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura. Mughal emperor Aurangzeb reportedly constructed it after he demolished a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna there.

In 1968, Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which manages the temple, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah, reached a ‘compromise agreement’ permitting both places of worship to coexist. However, at least a dozen parties went to court in the last 5 years, questioning this agreement.

The litigants argue that the compromise agreement is fraudulent and legally invalid. Many assert their right to worship at the contested site and are demanding the removal of the Shahi Eidgah mosque.

In May of last year, the Allahabad High Court assumed jurisdiction over all pending cases in the Mathura court related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, granting the transfer application submitted by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and seven others.

(With inputs from Live Law)

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day.

The post Krishna Janmabhoomi Case: Allahabad High Court Validates Hindu Lawsuits Seeking Removal Of Shahi Eidgah Mosque, Dismisses Muslim Petition appeared first on The Commune.

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the right to freedom of religion does not encompass the right to convert others. This observation was made while denying bail to Shriniwas Rav Nayak, who is accused of engaging in religious conversions. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, in rejecting Nayak’s bail plea, emphasized that while the Indian Constitution allows individuals the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, it does not permit converting others.

Justice Agarwal noted, “The Constitution confers on each individual the fundamental right to profess, practice, and propagate his religion. However, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytize.” The court further stated that the right to religious freedom applies equally to the person converting and the individual being converted.

Nayak, a resident of Andhra Pradesh, was charged under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, for converting some Hindus to Christianity by promising them relief from pain and a better life. While some villagers adopted Christianity and began praying, the informant, Brijlal, managed to escape and reported the incident to the police.

The prosecution explained that Brijlal had been invited to the house of a co-accused in Uttar Pradesh’s Maharajganj district in February this year. There, he observed many others, mostly from the Scheduled Caste community. The accused allegedly asked Brijlal to abandon Hinduism and convert to Christianity with promises that all his suffering would end, and his life would improve. Brijlal escaped and alerted the authorities, leading to the case’s registration.

After considering arguments from both sides, the High Court highlighted that the 2021 law explicitly prohibits conversion through misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, and allurement. The court noted that the Act also stipulates penalties for violating its provisions and restricts individuals from abetting, convincing, or conspiring to carry out such conversions.

Additionally, the court remarked that the 2021 Act was enacted in accordance with Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which does not allow or permit any citizen to convert another citizen from one religion to another. Given the allegations against Nayak, the court observed that the informant had been persuaded to convert to another religion, which was sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail. This established that a conversion program was ongoing, targeting villagers from the Scheduled Castes community to convert from Hinduism to Christianity.

On 1 July 2024, while hearing arguments for a similar case (Kailash vs State of UP), Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal while dismissing the bail plea of the accused also observed that the majority population of India could become a minority if religious gatherings facilitating conversions are not curtailed. 

(With inputs from Times Of India)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Right To Religious Freedom Does Not Include Right To Convert Others”, Says Allahabad High Court appeared first on The Commune.

The Allahabad High Court on 1 July 2024 issued a stern warning that the majority population of India could become a minority if religious gatherings facilitating conversions are not curtailed. The observation was made by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal while dismissing the bail plea of an accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Justice Agarwal was hearing the bail plea of Kailash, who was accused of taking people from his village to attend religious gatherings in New Delhi where they were allegedly converted to Christianity. The court noted that if such practices continue, the demographic balance of the country could be significantly altered.

“If this process is allowed to be carried out, the majority population of this country would be in minority one day,” Justice Agarwal stated. “Such religious congregations where conversions are taking place should be immediately stopped.”

The court highlighted that Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees “freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion” but does not sanction conversion from one religion to another. “The word ‘Propagation’ means to promote, but it does not mean to convert any person from his religion to another religion,” Justice Agarwal explained.

The court further observed that the unlawful conversion of people from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and economically poor sections to Christianity was rampant throughout Uttar Pradesh. “Unlawful activity of conversion of people of SC/ST castes and other economically poor persons is being done at a rampant pace throughout Uttar Pradesh,” Justice Agarwal noted.

During the bail hearing, the court was informed that the complainant’s brother, along with several villagers, was taken to a “well-being” gathering in Delhi by the accused, Kailash. The complainant alleged that many of these individuals never returned home, implying that they were converted.

Advocate Saket Jaiswal, representing the accused, argued that the victim, Ramphal, had not converted to Christianity and that he merely attended the gathering. Jaiswal also pointed out that another individual, Sonu Paster, who conducted the religious gatherings, had already been granted bail.

Despite these arguments, the court found the allegations against Kailash serious and denied his bail plea. “This Court, prima facie, finds that the applicant is not entitled to bail. Hence, the bail application of the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime is hereby rejected,” Justice Agarwal ruled.

Additional Advocate General PK Giri and Additional Government Advocate Sunil Kumar represented the state, supporting the need for stringent actions against such conversions to maintain social harmony.

(With inputs from Bar and Bench)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Allahabad HC Warns Of Majority Hindus Becoming Minority Due To Religious Conversions, Calls For Religious Gatherings Where Conversions Take Place To Be Stopped appeared first on The Commune.

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a Popular Front of India (PFI) office-bearer, who feared arrest for hurting religious sentiments in an inflammatory speech against the foundation stone laying for the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi temple.

The PFI is an extremist Islamic organisation and has often been accused of involvement in anti-national and anti-social activities.

A Lucknow bench of the high court denied the pre-arrest bail to PFI activist Mohammad Nadeem, saying the right to freedom of speech and expression is “not an absolute licence to hurt religious sentiments”.

Nadeem had been booked last year by the Barabanki police under section 153 (A) of the Indian Penal Code after he made some objectionable remarks against the foundation laying ceremony for the construction of the Ayodhya temple.

“The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in a secular state is not an absolute license to injure and hurt the religious feelings and faiths and beliefs of fellow citizens,” ruled Justice C D Singh, dismissing Nadeem’s bail plea. “A person who takes the risk of dissemination of blasphemous messages is not entitled to get the discretion of the court exercised in his favour,” the judge added.

The court passed the order on an anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the accused.

Opposing the plea, the government counsel Rajesh Kumar Singh argued that the allegations of the FIR against the accused were far too serious. “On earlier occasions also, the accused was involved in committing similar offences and he is habituated to disturbing harmony of the society by spreading hatred between the two communities,” added Singh.

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Allahabad HC denies anticipatory bail to PFI member appeared first on The Commune.