The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a Tamil Nadu resident, identified as Dev Sahayam Deniyal Raj, who had been accused in a case involving alleged unlawful religious conversion in the Mirzapur district of Uttar Pradesh. The charges stem from allegations that Deniyal, along with another accused, was involved in activities that the police claimed amounted to unlawful religious conversion under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. According to the prosecution’s case, Deniyal was accused of leading a group that purportedly “lured” individuals into converting, with police alleging that his group had converted dozens of people and was planning to convert many more before his arrest. The accused were arrested in late September 2025 and were in custody pending trial under Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Act, which prohibit conversion obtained by misrepresentation, force, fraud, coercion or allurement.
In considering the bail application, the High Court examined the nature of the accusations, the severity of the punishment that could follow upon conviction, the quality of the supporting evidence, and whether there was a reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses if bail were granted. The bench, presided over by Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, granted bail to Deniyal and his co-accused on these grounds, noting that the matter needed to be examined at trial and that custodial detention could not continue indefinitely without trial progress. Arguments on behalf of the accused contended that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case, and also challenged the basis on which the first information report was lodged. Counsel relied on recent Supreme Court authority interpreting aspects of the statutory scheme under the anti-conversion law, arguing that prosecution could only be initiated at the behest of an “aggrieved individual” or certain specified relatives under the unamended statutory framework, and highlighting the absence of incriminating recovery from the accused’s possession. In opposition, the state advanced the seriousness of the allegations and opposed bail, but the High Court ultimately allowed the bail application, balancing concerns about personal liberty, the pendency of trial and potential impact on the course of justice.
The bail order reflects the High Court’s exercise of discretion in a case under the anti-conversion statute, with the court applying established principles governing bail, including consideration of the accused’s rights, the nature and strength of the case against them, and the prospects of trial without undue delay. By granting bail, the court has allowed the accused to remain free on conditions pending further proceedings in the case, while emphasising that the merits of the allegations will be examined during the trial process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.