Prima Facie Evidence Of Meetings For Religious Conversion: Gujarat High Court Refuses Plea Of Two Moulvis Seeking Discharge
They were arraigned as accused for offences punishable under Section 4 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act read with Sections 120(B), 153(b)(1)(c) and 506(2) of the IPC.
Justice Gita Gopi, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court refused to discharge two Moulvis accused in a conversion case, holding that prima facie evidence of meetings for religious conversion existed.
A criminal revision application was filed by the accused persons seeking discharge in a case registered under provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act and the IPC.
A Bench of Justice Gita Gopi held, “There are evidences of meetings conducted by the applicant which were for religious conversion. This Court does not find any reason for interfering in the order passed by the concerned trial Court Judge, since at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the trial Court has applied judicial mind to find out whether the prima-facie case is made out for.”
Advocate Muhammad Quasim Vora appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate Bhargav Pandya appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners had filed the revision application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. They are arraigned as accused for offences punishable under Section 4 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act read with Sections 120(B), 153(b)(1)(c) and 506(2) of the IPC.
Counsel for the applicants argued that the trial court had committed an error by not allowing the discharge application, contending that there is no sufficient evidence to frame the charge and that the applicants had been falsely implicated. It was further submitted that both petitioners are Moulvis and it is their religious duty to preach about the religion, asserting a fundamental right to do so.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that a larger conspiracy has been busted, alleging, “The namaz was performed and the applicant no.1 and Haji Abdul Fhefadawala had delivered the lecture and had also given knowledge of the muslim religion to those converted as muslim.” It was also contended that villagers were allured with clothes, medicines and cash amount and promised items such as air cooler, water cooler, hand cart, chattai/chaadar for offering namaz.
After considering the submissions, the Court observed, “Having considered the evidence against the present applicants in the form of statements of the witnesses and the provision of Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2006, no case of any discharge has been found on the material and statements perused by this Court.”
The Court clarified that at the stage of framing charge, sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement.
Finding no reason to interfere with the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the application.
Cause Title: Sarfraz & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, [2026:GUJHC:22767]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Muhammad Quasim Vora, Umarfaruk M Kharadi
Respondent: Advocate Bhargav Pandya
