The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case involving allegations of forced religious conversion and rape, emphasizing the absence of corroborative evidence and the presumption of innocence. The judgment underscores that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of serious allegations when the prosecution fails to establish prima facie guilt, particularly in cases marked by conflicting statements and no medical or documentary proof.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Mohammad Rustam, is accused in Crime No. 151 of 2026 under Sections 64(1), 87, and 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 3, 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The allegations center on the claim that he induced a minor Hindu girl, aged 18 years and 4 months, to convert to Islam and then raped her. The case was registered at Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.
Key Facts
- The victim is a major female, aged 18 years and 4 months at the time of the alleged incident.
- The applicant and the victim were in a consensual relationship for approximately one and a half years prior to the incident.
- The victim left her home voluntarily and stayed in a hotel in Ambedkar Nagar.
- She was administered drinks near a majar (Sufi shrine), according to her statement under Section 183 BNSS.
- The medico-legal report of the victim contains no findings supporting allegations of rape.
- There is no evidence of a religious priest, ceremony, or documentation proving conversion from Hinduism to Islam.
- Although the victim’s name was changed on her Aadhaar card to a Muslim name, no official conversion certificate or religious record exists.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record.
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 24.04.2026.
Procedural History
- 24.04.2026: Applicant arrested and lodged in jail.
- Date of FIR: Not specified in judgment, but case registered as Crime No. 151 of 2026.
- 02.07.2026: Bail application filed before the Allahabad High Court.
- 02.07.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- The relationship with the victim was consensual.
- No evidence exists to substantiate the claim of forced religious conversion.
- The change in name on Aadhaar does not constitute proof of conversion under the UP Act.
- The medico-legal report refutes the allegation of rape.
- The applicant has no criminal antecedents and will not tamper with evidence or flee.
For the Respondent / State
- The applicant allegedly converted the victim from Hinduism to Islam and then raped her.
- The change in the victim’s name on Aadhaar card is cited as evidence of conversion.
- The State did not dispute the absence of medical evidence of rape or the lack of a religious ceremony.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought bail pending trial, arguing that his continued incarceration without prima facie evidence violates his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the principles laid down in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied in a case involving serious allegations under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and BNS, where there is no medical evidence of rape, no proof of religious conversion, and the victim’s own statements indicate consensual conduct.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel for the applicant relied on the absence of corroborative evidence to argue that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case. He cited Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI to emphasize that bail should be the norm and jail the exception, particularly where the accused has no criminal history and the evidence is weak. He further relied on Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. to argue that allegations alone, without supporting material, cannot justify denial of bail. He contended that a name change on Aadhaar does not satisfy the statutory requirement of a religious conversion under the UP Act, which mandates a formal declaration before a prescribed authority.
For the Respondent/State
The learned A.G.A. and counsel for the first informant opposed bail on the grounds that the applicant allegedly induced religious conversion and committed rape. However, they did not dispute the absence of medical evidence or the lack of any religious ceremony. Their opposition rested primarily on the seriousness of the allegations and the change in the victim’s name on official documents, without producing any independent proof of conversion or coercion.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the medico-legal report, and the absence of any documentary or testimonial evidence of religious conversion. It noted that the victim herself stated she left home voluntarily and had been in a consensual relationship with the applicant for over a year. The Court observed that the medico-legal report contained no findings of sexual assault, thereby undermining the rape allegation.
"There is no evidence regarding commission of rape on the victim as per her medico-legal report and there is no evidence of any religious priest before whom she was converted from Hinduism to Islam."
The Court further held that a mere change in name on an Aadhaar card, without a formal declaration, registration, or presence of a religious authority, cannot constitute proof of unlawful conversion under the UP Act. It emphasized that the statute requires active inducement or coercion, none of which was substantiated.
The Court also considered the broader context: overcrowded jails, massive pendency of cases, and the Supreme Court’s directive in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2024) 10 SCC 685, which mandates timely release on bail where no compelling reason exists to deny it. The applicant’s clean record and the lack of prima facie evidence tipped the balance in his favor.
The Court explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but held that the threshold for bail under Article 21 and the principles of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar had been met.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The applicant, Mohammad Rustam, is to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The conditions include: no contact with witnesses, no tampering with evidence, no criminal activity, and full cooperation in trial proceedings. The trial court must transmit the release order via the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) and the Jail Superintendent must email or upload the order via the e-prison portal within 24 hours. Identity and residence verification of the applicant and sureties, including Aadhaar and mobile number, must be conducted by the court before bond acceptance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Allegations Alone Cannot Deny Bail
- Practitioners must argue that bail cannot be denied merely because an offence carries a serious punishment.
- Absence of medical evidence, lack of corroborative documentation, and inconsistent witness statements must be highlighted to meet the prima facie threshold.
- Courts must apply the Kapil Wadhawan and Maya Tiwari principles uniformly, especially in cases involving sensitive social statutes.
Name Change on Aadhaar Is Not Proof of Religious Conversion
- Under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, conversion requires a formal declaration before a prescribed authority.
- A change in name on an identity document without a certificate, priest, or registration does not satisfy the statutory definition.
- Defence counsel should move to strike down such evidence as irrelevant or insufficient to establish the offence under Section 3 or 5(1).
Procedural Compliance in Bail Orders Is Mandatory
- Courts must ensure compliance with Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail by directing immediate transmission of bail orders via BOMS and e-prison portals.
- Failure to do so may attract contempt proceedings.
- Advocates must file compliance applications if release is delayed beyond 24 hours.
