The Supreme Court, in a strongly-worded judgment on January 27, 2025, rebuked the Allahabad High Court for its failure to grant bail to a Maulvi accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan underscored the importance of exercising judicial discretion judiciously, especially in cases lacking grave charges like murder or rape.
Case Background
The petitioner, Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi, was accused of forcibly converting a mentally challenged minor to Islam while serving at a Madarsa in Kanpur Nagar. The prosecution alleged violations under Sections 504 (insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, along with Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Conversion Act, which prohibits religious conversion through coercion or fraud. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court had both denied bail, prompting the Maulvi to approach the Supreme Court after 11 months in custody.
The apex court expressed dismay over the High Court’s reluctance to grant bail despite the absence of severe charges. Highlighting the principle that "bail is the rule, jail the exception," the bench remarked:
“Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious. The petitioner is going to be put to trial and ultimately if the prosecution succeeds in establishing its case, he would be punished.”
The Court criticized the growing trend of lower courts hesitating to grant bail, leading to unnecessary appeals and backlog in higher courts. It noted:
“We fail to understand what harm would have befallen on the prosecution if the petitioner would have been released on bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions. This is one of the reasons why the High Courts and now unfortunately the Supreme Court of the country is flooded with bail applications.”
The Uttar Pradesh Conversion Act prescribes stringent penalties, including 3–10 years of imprisonment for unlawful conversions. However, the Supreme Court clarified that bail should not be withheld mechanically. The Maulvi’s defense argued that the minor was abandoned by his parents and given shelter out of humanitarian concern, with no coercion involved.
Read Also - Supreme Court Rejects Plea for SEBI’s Final Report in Adani-Hindenburg Case, Backs Ongoing Probe
The prosecution countered that the case fell under the “proviso” of Section 5 of the Act, which mandates stricter punishment for conversions involving minors. Yet, the Court found no evidence to justify prolonged custody, especially since the trial had already commenced with seven witnesses examined.
The judgment also addressed systemic issues in judicial training. The bench pointed out:
“Every year so many conferences and workshops are held to teach trial judges about bail principles, as if they don’t understand Section 439 of the CrPC.”
It urged High Courts to avoid letting extraneous factors influence bail decisions, stressing that refusal in non-serious cases erodes public trust.
The Supreme Court ordered the Maulvi’s release on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. It clarified that the observations would not affect the trial’s outcome, which must rely solely on evidence.
Case Title: Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi @ Mohd. Shad vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
For Petitioner(s)
- Mr. K. L. Janjani, AOR
- Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, Adv.
- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.
- Mr. Kailash J. Kashyap, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
- Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv.
- Mr. Ankit Goel (AOR)
For detailed insights, refer to the judgment:
