The court further observed, “The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape etc. We can understand 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.”
NEW DELHI: On Monday, The Supreme Court has granted bail to a madrasa teacher, Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi, who the Uttar Pradesh government accused of ‘illegally‘ converting a minor boy to Islam. The court observed that the charges against him were not as severe as crimes like murder, dacoity, or rape.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan criticized the lower courts for their approach in this matter.
The apex court noted, “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 court further observed, “The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape etc. We can understand 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.”
Background
The Uttar Pradesh government had alleged that Mr. Kazmi unlawfully converted a minor boy under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
According to the Act, a person is guilty of illegal religious conversion if they use “misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, and allurement.“
However, Mr. Kazmi’s lawyer argued that the boy was found abandoned on the streets, and Mr. Kazmi had provided him shelter purely on humanitarian grounds. The Maulvi had been in custody for approximately 11 months before approaching the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: “Muslim Men Targeting Hindu Women Through Love Jihad”: Court Sends Youth to Jail for Life
The Supreme Court expressed disappointment with the reluctance of trial courts and even High Courts to grant bail.
The order stated, “It is not nowadays expected of trial courts to be brave but at least the High Court should have mustered the courage to grant the man bail.”
This lack of courage among trial courts, according to the Supreme Court, has resulted in an overwhelming number of bail applications reaching the higher judiciary.
ALSO READ: Set to Implement New ‘Anti-Conversion Law’: Rajasthan Govt Tells SC
“A possible lack of courage on trial courts’ part to exercise discretion to grant bail was one of the reasons why the High Courts, and now unfortunately, the Supreme Court was flooded with bail applications,” the court added.
The Uttar Pradesh government opposed the bail plea, arguing that the trial had already started, and several witnesses had been examined. The State also highlighted that Mr. Kazmi could face up to 10 years’ imprisonment if found guilty.
