Summary
The Supreme Court granted bail to a man who was jailed for nearly six months under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, merely for marrying a woman of another faith in an arranged marriage. The Court noted that the marriage was consensual and arranged by both families, and that the ongoing criminal proceedings shouldn’t prevent the couple from living together peacefully.
Brief Facts of the Case
- The appellant married a woman of another faith in an arranged marriage accepted by both families.
- Soon after the marriage, some individuals and organizations raised objections.
- This led to FIR No. 609/2024 being filed under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections, alleging forced religious conversion.
- The man was arrested and remained in jail for almost six months.
- His bail application was rejected by the Uttarakhand High Court, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Provisions Involved:
- Section 3/5 of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 – Related to unlawful conversion
- Sections 218(4) and 319 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Offences of concealment of identity and causing hurt
- Constitutional rights regarding personal liberty and freedom of choice
- Article 142 of the Constitution – Power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice
Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The marriage was not secret or forced—it was arranged by both families with mutual knowledge.
- The FIR was frivolous and motivated by outsiders who objected to their interfaith marriage.
- He and his wife are adults and wish to live peacefully, away from their families if needed.
- He had already spent six months in custody and cooperated with the investigation.
Respondent (State):
- Argued that the appeal had no merit and the proceedings should continue.
- Did not present any strong objections against the couple living together.
Court’s Observation:
- The Supreme Court acknowledged the consensual nature of the marriage, supported by both families.
- Noted that the State had no objection to the couple living together.
- Accepted that the man had already been jailed for a significant time and the nature of the allegations did not justify continued custody.
- Clearly stated that ongoing proceedings should not come in the way of the couple’s right to cohabit.
- Recognized the emotional and personal cost of criminalizing a voluntary relationship.
Conclusion of the Judgment:
- The appeal was allowed, and the man was granted bail.
- He will be released by the Trial Court upon furnishing suitable conditions.
- Directed to cooperate in trial and not misuse the liberty granted.
- Any violation of bail terms could lead to cancellation of the relief.
Comments from the authour of this website
Honestly, what this man went through is something many of us fear—being criminalized for a personal relationship. Imagine marrying someone with your families’ full consent, only to end up in jail for months just because others didn’t approve of the match.
He didn’t force anyone. There was no coercion. Yet he was charged under a law meant to prevent forced conversions. How does that even apply here? What happened was not just legally questionable—it was emotionally and socially devastating.
The worst part? The State couldn’t even explain why he needed to stay in jail. No evidence of force, no sign of manipulation—just assumptions and suspicion. And for that, he lost months of freedom, faced public humiliation, and saw his marriage turned into a legal battle.
When adults choose to marry—especially with their families’ approval—the law should protect them, not punish them. Cases like this show how easily relationships can be weaponized in the name of religion or public opinion, even when the couple wants nothing but peace.
Final Thoughts:
This case is a clear reminder of how personal choices are still under threat when social pressure mixes with legal overreach. The court’s intervention came as a correction—but only after the damage was already done.
The system must evolve to protect individuals who choose to live on their own terms. Laws meant to prevent exploitation should not be used to target consensual relationships. And when they are, courts must act quickly—not just to grant bail—but to restore dignity and protect basic freedoms.
Let people love and live in peace. Isn’t that the least we all deserve?
Read Complete Judgement Here