Prima Facie Police Can't Institute Prosecution For Alleged Forced Religious Conversion Without Prior Sanction From DM: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a man accused of inducing the complainant to convert to his religion, after "prima facie" noting that mandate of prior sanction to initiate prosecution under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act had not been followed. For context, Section 6 of the Act states that "no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or such other authority not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate as may be authorised by him in that behalf". The court was hearing the accused's bail plea booked for offences under Sections 4(1) (which penalizes forced religious conversion as provided under Section 3 with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years and fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000) and 4(2) of Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act.Section 4(2) states that when an offence is committed under the Act, in addition to the person who actually does any act which constitutes the offence, each of the following shall be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and shall be charged as if he has actually committed the said offence, namely:-(a) a person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence;(b) a person who aids, abets, counsels or convinces another person to commit the offence.Justice Nikhil S Kariel in his order observed that the allegation in the FIR "being serious" in as much as the accused was stated to have "induced the complainant into joining a different religion than the one he processes". It further said:"The fact of there being no actual conversion having taken place and the allegation restricted to some inducement being handed out to the complainant. The fact of the applicants being in custody since 05.10.2025 and 07.10.2025, respectively. The charge-sheet having been filed and also considering the maximum punishment that could be imposed.The fact that prima facie, the mandate of Section 6 does not appear to have been followed since the sanction of the District Magistrate for institution of the offence or prosecution, had been obtained only on 24.11.2025 as against the charge-sheet has been sent by the Investigating Officer to the learned Trial Court on 21.11.2025".The counsel for the prosecution drew the court's attention to a 20.11.2025 communication by the Investigating Officer seeking permission to institute the offence/for prosecution for which sanction was granted vide order dated 24.11.2025.The order notes that both the sanction and the charge-sheet were of the same date. "Prima facie, it would appear to this Court, that Section 6 would be imposing a mandate against the Investigating Officer that he would not institute prosecution for an offence without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate and whereas, the said sanction does not impose any condition upon the Magistrate, more particularly, since the word used is 'no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted' as against “no cognizance of an offence shall be taken” which appears in other similar Acts. The above observation being prima facie in nature, more particularly, since the vires of the Act itself being under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court".The court took into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012). For context, in Sanjay Chandra the apex court had held that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail.The high court thus said:"In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail".The petitioner submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It was further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the court. The State opposed the grant of bail and argued that the nature of offence and the role attributed to the applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, the Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and plea be dismissed. The court thus granted bail to the accused on executing a bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to certain conditions. The court however clarified that its observations are "prima facie observation", particularly since the vires of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act is a subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court. Case title: STEVAN BHANUBHAI MACWAN & ANR. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)...

Prima Facie Police Can't Institute Prosecution For Alleged Forced Religious Conversion Without Prior Sanction From DM: Gujarat High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Prima Facie Police Can't Institute Prosecution For Alleged Forced Religious Conversion Without Prior Sanction From DM: Gujarat High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers