Gautam Buddha Nagar Court Denies Bail To South Korean Woman, 3 Others Accused Under Up Anti-Conversion Law

OVERVIEW

· Gautam Buddha Nagar's Sessions court recently denied bail to a South Korean woman and 3 Uttar Pradesh residents in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020, for allegedly trying to entice two Hindu women to Christianity.

· This order was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Pratap Singh while hearing a bail filed by Minkaygali alias Anmol, Umesh Kumar, Sandhya, and Seema.

· The FIR was lodged at the Surjapur Police Station in Gautam Buddha Nagar under section 3/5 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020, and 295A of IPC.

· The matter is related to an attempt made by the accused  convert two Hindu women to Christianity by way of misrepresentation, undue influence, allurement, and fraudulent means in connivance with a foreign national.

· The Government advocate submitted that the 4 accused were involved in ‘mass conversion' as defined under section 2(f) of the Ordinance.

· The Ordinance provides that whoever is found indulging in mass conversion, shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than Rs 50,000. Section 5 (1) of the ordinance provides a minimum punishment of 3 years and a maximum of 10 years for violating it.

· The prosecution submitted that the South Korean woman arrived in India 3 months before, for a tourist visit but now she is involved in an offense punishable under the new ordinance.

· The prosecution said Anita was given Rs 7,000 and Muski was given Rs 3,000 and asked to remove the idols/murti/images of Hindu gods and goddesses from their respective homes and were offered Rs 10 lakh each if they convert.

· But the accused denied the fact that they were involved in this offense and contended that they were falsely accused by the police because of collusion with the complainant and have no relation with this case and that in fact, they were also Hindus.

JUDGEMENT

The Court denied them the benefit of bail and dismissed their bail application noting that “as per the facts and circumstances of the case, the crime is of a serious nature”.

CONCLUSION

Every individual has their fundamental right to practice, profess and propagate their religion under Article 25-28 of the Constitution. India being a secular state, anybody could believe, practice, or follow the ideologies of any religion on their “sole decision”. Being secular does not count the action of conversion of a person in one religion to the other as believing and practicing a religion is one's own decision. It could thus be considered as an encroachment to the fundamental rights of the citizen. Hence, it's not encouraging.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO PRACTISE THEIR RELIGION? HOW COULD A SOUTH KOREAN NATIONAL BE PUNISHED UNDER INDIAN LAW?

Let us know through comments.