It is most significant to note that the Supreme Court which is the top court in India above which there is no other court has in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi @ Mohd Shad vs The State of Uttar Pradesh in SLP(Crl.) No. 1059/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-05-2024 in CRMBA No. 13628/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] that was pronounced as recently as on January 27, 2025 has observed unequivocally that Trial Courts seldom muster the courage to grant bail to the accused. Plainly speaking and without mincing any words whatsoever, the Apex Court Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan observed briefly, boldly and bluntly that:
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. We also need to pay our singular attention to the irrefutable fact that the Bench of Apex Court made this key observation while censuring and rapping on the knuckles of the Allahabad High Court while taking potshots for denying bail to an accused in a case of alleged religious conversion.

My very best friend Sageer Khan 31 years ago in 1994 in Makronia locality in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh termed conversion as one of the worst crimes on earth and further said fumingly with tears in eyes when I once expressed my desire to him to become Muslim that:
Conversion cannot be justified under any circumstances. Just like I will never shun Islam and Allah similarly you should never shun Hinduism and Mahadev whom you worship till now. There is a reason why God makes our birth in a particular religion which we should never shun under any circumstances and all religions are different paths to reach the same goal just like mountaineers adopt different paths to reach the same top of a mountain. No religion is bad and so conversion must be totally banned. I will never allow you to become Sher Khan and if you are my true friend say with your hand on my head on oath that you will never shun Hinduism nor Mahadev Baba in whom you had unflinching faith till recently!

Leave alone converting say on oath that you will never enter in mosque nor see towards mosque! Centre must definitely make conversion punishable with huge fine and imprisonment of at least 10 years if not life and must ban it completely.

If I was PM I would have punished it with mandatory death penalty just like terror acts with their execution being held in public so that no one could dare indulge in conversion of any kind in India which is more serious than terrorism! I very strongly feel that acts of conversion are more dangerous than terror acts as it is done without firing even a bullet and those who do so cannot be ever the true well wishers of India and are secret agents of rogue countries like USA and UK who add united before their name but always favour division of other countries especially India and who hate Hindus most as maximum freedom fighters were Hindus due to which Britishers were forced to leave India and among Hindus Sikhs as maximum Hindus were Sikhs and among Muslims hate Shias as maximum freedom fighters among Muslims were Shias and Mohammad Ali Jinnah was also a Shia and maximum terror attacks on Shias mosque masterminded by USA and UK and lastly Sunnis also. I am most proud to say that Muslims enjoy maximum liberty in India all over the world but I don’t favour unilateral imposition of monogamy in 1955 only on Hindus and religions related with Hinduism like Sikh, Buddhist and Jains who earlier in British rule, Mughal rule, Lodi rule, Tughlaq rule, Khilji rule etc for thousands of years enjoyed both polygamy and polyandry and this is the root cause of conversions in India and so polygamy must be uniformly banned so that persons like film actor Dharmendra are not compelled to embrace Islam for marrying more than one and such discrimination in laws must be abolished by enacting the uniform civil code! Hindus are most tolerant in the world.

The only one thing that I feel ashamed of in India is that conversion is not banned which greatly encourages foreign powers to carry out massive conversion through their secret agents to change the religious demography and further destabilize India on a large scale which cannot be ever justified! We all know Khalistani terrorists are encouraged openly in USA and UK who want many more partition of India as in 1947 which can be possible only by mass conversion to which their secret agents in India resort to repeatedly which cannot be ever justified just like partition of 1947 on basis of religion cannot be ever justified!

How can Centre still allow conversions to take place legally by which rogue and powerful countries like USA and UK who masterminded the most dastardly partition of 1947 which claimed more than 50 lakhs lives would be taking the last laugh as they can abet partition very easily with their converted agents in India without any interference by Centre or Supreme Court in this regard? If conversion is still allowed as we see now then I am compelled to say that the only lesson that India has learnt from history is that it has not learnt any lesson which is the biggest Himalayan blunder on earth! So never convert nor ever dare to bat for conversion to be legal as we see most unfortunately right now which is the root cause of problems in many States like Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland etc.

You will be stabbing me not one time or ten times or even hundred times but thousands of times if you ever decide in life to convert to Islam or any other religion for which I will never pardon you! I will prefer to die than to convert to any other religion and I expect you also to follow similarly like me. Okay! I nodded my head in agreement with him!

Having expressed my very best friend Sageer Khan’s strong belief on conversion, we cannot disregard what the Supreme Court says as it is the top court in India and whatever it rules has to be respected! This alone explains why Centre till date has ensured that conversion is never banned in India! We see that in this leading case the top court clearly opined after having considered the allegations against the accused that the High Court should have exercised its discretion by granting bail to him. It also ruled that there was no good reason for the High Court to decline bail. It held that:
We are conscious of the fact that grant of bail is a matter of discretion. But 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.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Apex Court Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The Petitioner has been denied bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in connection with case Crime No. 74/2024 registered with Naubasta Police Station, District Kanpur Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 respectively of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC) and Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (for short the Act, 2021) punishable under Section 5 of the Act, 2021.

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 2 of this robust judgment that:
It is the case of the prosecution that a mentally retarded minor was forcibly kept by the petitioner herein serving as a Maulvi in a Madarasa. It is further alleged that the Maulvi i.e. the petitioner herein converted the minor to a Muslim.

Simply put, the Bench points out in para 3 of this commendable judgment that, In such circumstances referred to above, the petitioner is said to have committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act, 2021 punishable under Section 5 of the Act, 2021.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 7 that:
According to Ms. Prashad the trial has commenced and so far as 7 witnesses have been examined by the trial court.

Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 8 that:
She further submitted that the case falls within the proviso to Section 5 as the allegations are one of converting the religion of a minor, and therefore, the maximum punishment is up to 10 years.

On the contrary, the Bench then notes in para 9 that:
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that there is no case worth the name against the petitioner herein and he has been in custody past more than 11 months. He submitted that the child being mentally challenged was abandoned by the parents and was thrown on the streets. The petitioner on humanitarian grounds brought the child to his place and gave him shelter.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 10 that:
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the High Court should have exercised its discretion by granting bail to the petitioner. There was no good reason for the High Court to decline bail. The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape etc.

Most rationally, the Bench observes in para 11 that:
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.

Most remarkably, the Bench propounds in para 12 stating that:
We are conscious of the fact that grant of bail is a matter of discretion. But 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. The petitioner is going to be put to trial and ultimately if the prosecution succeeds in establishing its case, he would be punished.

It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 13 that:
Every year so many conferences, seminars, workshops etc. are held to make the trial judges understand how to exercise their discretion while considering a bail application as if the trial judges do not know the scope of Section 439 of the CrPC or Section 483 of the BNSS.

Most significantly, the Bench expounds in para 14 postulating that:
At times when the High Court declines bail in the matters of the present type, it gives an impression that altogether different considerations weighed with the presiding officer ignoring the well settled principles of grant of bail.

Equally significant is what the Bench then holds in para 15 that:
In fact, this matter should not have reached up to the Supreme Court. The trial court itself should have been courageous enough to exercise its discretion and release the petitioner on bail.

Most forthrightly, the Bench observed in para 16 that:
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.

More to the point, the Bench concedes in para 17 stating that:
This is one of the reasons why the High Courts and now unfortunately the Supreme Court of the country is flooded with bail applications.

Further, the Bench points out in para 18 that:
In one of the matters, we have taken the view that ordinarily once the trial commences, the court should be loath in releasing the accused on bail, but it all depends on the nature of the crime. Had it been a case of murder or any other serious offence we would have declined.

Most sagaciously, the Bench then holds in para 19 that:
In the present case, although the trial is in progress and the prosecution witnesses are being examined yet it is a fit case to order release of the petitioner on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.

Furthermore, the Bench directs in para 20 stating that:
The petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed.

What’s more, the Bench directs in para 21 that:
The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.

In addition, the Bench then directs in para 22 that:
The release of the petitioner should not now come in the way of the trial. Let the trial proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.

For sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies mentioning in para 23 that:
We clarify that the guilt or the innocence of the accused shall be determined on the strength of the substantive evidence that may come on record and without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court.

Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes by holding in para 24 that, Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh