New Delhi: On February 17, 2024, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against a maulana in Uttar Pradesh’s Kanpur district on the allegations that he had coaxed a minor Hindu boy with an intellectual disability to convert to Islam and forced him to serve in a local madrasa.
The case was one among the hundreds filed by the police in the state ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power and introduced a new law against conversions in 2020. It had barely caught public attention until the Supreme Court on January 27, hearing the maulana’s plea for bail, made an example out of the case to show how lower courts were ignoring well-settled principles of bail.
The matter should not have reached the apex court, the Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said as they pulled up the Allahabad high court for unnecessarily denying bail to the accused maulana, who has been in jail since February 18, 2024.
Here is a timeline of how Maulana Syed Shad Kazmi’s case reached the apex court after lower courts denied him bail at every stage. Kazmi, the imam of a local mosque in Kanpur, was booked under Sections 3 and 5 (1) of The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 on the complaint of a Hindu woman. She alleged that Kazmi took away her minor son, also with an intellectual disability, without her consent and used force to convert him to Islam. When she protested, the maulana threatened her, she alleged. In her police complaint, the woman, whose husband is not alive, said her son was “the source of her survival.”
In addition to alleged unlawful conversion, Kazmi was booked for intentional insults that provoke others to break the peace or commit other crimes and criminal intimidation. If convicted, he could receive a jail term of 10 years.
Also read: ‘Muster Courage’: SC Reprimands Allahabad HC Over Denial of Bail in ‘Conversion’ Case
After being arrested, Kazmi approached a local court for bail. His lawyers argued that the prosecution had failed to state how and when he allegedly converted the boy. The government district counsel submitted in the court that Kazmi had allegedly converted the boy at the Masjid-e-Hidayat after making him read the kalma. The boy had also changed his name to Mohammad Hamza, said the additional district government counsel.
The government counsel also said that in their statements given under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the woman and her son had both alleged that the maulana had offered him the promise of “jannat” (paradise) and “72 hoors in jannat” (72 maidens in heaven), if he converted to Islam.
On February 27, additional sessions judge, Kanpur, Vinay Singh rejected Kazmi’s bail application, noting the “serious nature of the crime” and the “possibility of communal harmony being spoiled.”
“Converting someone’s religion through allurements is not only a crime against a particular person, but also against the society and the nation. It is expected of a religious leader that he will not commit any act to spoil the harmony of the society,” judge Singh said in the bail rejection order, a copy of which is with The Wire.
Judge Singh also acknowledged a report of the Kanpur police which said that Kazmi, if granted bail, could violate the bail conditions and influence the prosecution witnesses.
Kazmi then approached the Allahabad high court, where his lawyers argued that the boy “used to wander here and there” and “very often” visited the madrasa and stayed there. On May 15, 2024 Justice Sameer Jain of the high court denied Kazmi bail, taking note of the statement given by the boy under Section 161 of CrPC. “Considering the fact that applicant is the Maulvi in the Mosque and there is specific allegation that he forcibly changed the religion of [intellectually disabled] minor son of the informant and son of the informant also stated against him in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and applicant is in jail only since February, 2024, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage,” said Justice Jain.
Kazmi then knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court. The government counsel informed the Supreme Court that trial in the case had started and that so far seven witnesses had been examined. Kazmi’s counsel submitted in the Supreme Court that the boy had been abandoned by his parents and was thrown on the streets as he was intellectually disabled. On humanitarian grounds, Kazmi brought the child to his place and gave him shelter, his lawyer said.
Also read: Keralite Couple in UP Get 5 Years in Jail for ‘Converting’ Dalit Villagers to Christianity
The Supreme Court granted bail to Kazmi but also made some scathing remarks about the denial of bail by the high court and trial courts. The Allahabad high court “should have exercised its discretion by granting bail to the petitioner,” said the Supreme Court.
Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan said there was “no good reason” for the high court to deny bail. “The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape etc,” the judges said.
The Supreme Court bench also said it expected the high court to display more courage. “We can understand that the trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail, be it any offence. However, at least, it was expected of the High Court to muster the courage and exercise its discretion judiciously,” the apex court said.
The judges added that although they were “conscious of the fact that grant of bail is a matter of discretion,” discretion “has to be exercised judicially keeping in mind the well settled principles of grant of bail. “Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious,” said the Supreme Court.
