Anticipatory Bail Denied Under M.P. Freedom of Religion Act | Prima Facie Evidence of Mass Conversion Outweighs Article 25 Rights : MPHC-GWL

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, recently dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) in a case involving allegations of mass religious conversion under the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021. The Court emphasized the gravity of the offence, prima facie evidence, and the potential threat to communal harmony, distinguishing the case from precedents cited by the applicants on religious freedom.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicants, Sitaram and others, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Crime No. 06/2026 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Sheopur. The offence was punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, read with Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The prosecution alleged that the applicants were involved in mass religious conversion by luring innocent citizens with monetary and other benefits.

Key Facts

• Crime Registration: The FIR was registered on an unspecified date in 2026 under the aforementioned provisions.
• Allegations: The applicants were accused of converting individuals by offering monetary and other inducements.
• No Private Complaints: The applicants argued that no independent victim or complainant had lodged a private complaint against them.
• Activities: The applicants claimed they were spreading awareness about the evil effects of tobacco and wine through religious preaching.
• Communal Harmony: The prosecution alleged that the applicants had committed marpeet (violence) with individuals who objected to their activities, thereby damaging communal harmony.

Procedural History

• Filing of Application: The applicants filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 18255 of 2026 under Section 482 BNSS for anticipatory bail.
• Hearing Date: The matter was heard on 4th May, 2026.

The Parties' Positions

For the Applicants

• Innocence: The applicants claimed they were falsely implicated and were law-abiding citizens.
• Religious Freedom: They argued that their activities were protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion.
• Precedents Cited: The applicants relied on judgments such as State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr., Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. They also cited recent Supreme Court orders in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, National Council of Churches in India v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Sabnam & Anrs v. State of Rajasthan, and Rajasthan Christian Council Trust v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
• Undertaking: The applicants undertook to cooperate in the investigation and trial and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.

For the State

• Opposition: The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicants were the main accused in the case.
• Gravity of Offence: The State contended that the allegations were grave and serious, warranting denial of bail.

Relief Sought

The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, arguing that they were falsely implicated and that their activities were protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted to individuals accused of offences under the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 and Section 296 BNS, where the allegations involved mass religious conversion and potential threats to communal harmony, despite the applicants' claims of exercising their fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicants

• False Implication: The applicants argued that they were falsely implicated and that no independent victim had lodged a complaint against them.
• Religious Freedom: They contended that their activities were protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• Precedents: The applicants cited several judgments to support their claim that bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of the offence.

For the State

• Gravity of Offence: The State argued that the allegations were grave and serious, involving mass religious conversion and threats to communal harmony.
• Prima Facie Evidence: The State contended that sufficient prima facie evidence existed to indicate the involvement of the applicants in the commission of the offence.
• Cognizable Offence: The State pointed out that the offence under Section 296 BNS was cognizable, warranting denial of bail.

The Court's Analysis

The Court carefully considered the submissions of both parties and perused the case diary and material on record. The Court observed the following:

1. Gravity of Allegations: The Court noted that the allegations against the applicants were grave and serious, involving mass religious conversion and potential threats to communal harmony.

2. Prima Facie Evidence: The Court found that there existed sufficient prima facie evidence indicating the involvement of the applicants in the commission of the offence. The Court emphasized that the applicants were accused of committing marpeet with individuals who objected to their activities, which suggested a threat to communal harmony.

3. No Independent Complaints: While the applicants argued that no independent victim had lodged a complaint, the Court observed that the offence under Section 296 BNS was cognizable, and the absence of private complaints did not negate the seriousness of the allegations.

4. Distinguishing Precedents: The Court held that the precedents cited by the applicants, such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr., were not applicable to the present case. The Court distinguished these cases on the grounds that the present allegations involved threats to communal harmony and prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.

5. Fundamental Right vs. Public Order: The Court acknowledged the applicants' reliance on Article 25 but emphasized that the right to freedom of religion was not absolute and could be restricted on grounds of public order, morality, and health. The Court found that the applicants' activities potentially threatened communal harmony, thereby justifying restrictions on their religious freedom.

"The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants do not hold relevancy in the present set of facts and circumstances."

The Verdict

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants. The Court held that:

1. The allegations against the applicants were grave and serious, involving mass religious conversion and threats to communal harmony.
2. Sufficient prima facie evidence existed to indicate the involvement of the applicants in the commission of the offence.
3. The precedents cited by the applicants were distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
4. The right to freedom of religion under Article 25 could be restricted on grounds of public order, which was potentially threatened by the applicants' activities.

Accordingly, the Court found no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants and dismissed the application.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Anticipatory Bail Is Not Automatic for Offences Under M.P. Freedom of Religion Act

• Gravity of Offence: Courts will closely examine the gravity of allegations under the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, particularly where there is prima facie evidence of threats to communal harmony. Practitioners must be prepared to address the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on public order.
• Prima Facie Evidence: The existence of prima facie evidence, even in the absence of independent complaints, can be sufficient to deny anticipatory bail. Defence counsel must thoroughly scrutinize the case diary and material on record to challenge the strength of the prosecution's evidence.

Religious Freedom Under Article 25 Is Not Absolute

• Public Order Restrictions: The judgment reinforces that Article 25 is subject to restrictions on grounds of public order, morality, and health. Activities that threaten communal harmony or involve coercion, inducement, or violence may not be protected under the guise of religious freedom.
• Balancing Act: Courts will balance the right to freedom of religion with the need to maintain public order. Practitioners must frame arguments that demonstrate how their clients' activities do not threaten communal harmony or public order.

Precedents Must Be Carefully Distinguished

• Case-Specific Analysis: The Court's refusal to apply precedents like Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar underscores the need for practitioners to carefully distinguish cases based on their specific facts. Generic reliance on bail jurisprudence may not suffice where allegations involve threats to communal harmony or prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.
• Tailored Arguments: Defence counsel must tailor their arguments to address the unique aspects of each case, particularly where the allegations involve sensitive issues like religious conversion and communal harmony.