The Supreme Court has granted bail to a Muslim man arrested under the Uttarakhand anti-conversion law for marrying a Hindu woman, saying the marriage was solemnised following the consent of both families.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by Aman Siddiqui alias Aman Chaudhary alias Raja challenging the rejection of his bail plea by Uttarakhand High Court.

The apex court rejected the opposition mounted by the state’s counsel against the bail, but said it could be cancelled in case the appellant violated any of its conditions.

“We observe that the respondent state cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together as they have been married as per the wishes of their respective parents and families. In the circumstances, we find that this is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted to the appellant herein,” the bench said.

The top court also made it clear that the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would not come in the way of the couple living together.

“Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out,” the bench said.

The apex court directed Siddiqui’s production before a trial court, which would decide on his bail conditions.

Siddiqui was directed to extend full cooperation during the trial and not to misuse
his bail.

“Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to
the appellant. With the aforesaid directions, the criminal appeal is allowed,” the
court said.

Siddiqui was booked under FIR No. 609 of 2024, lodged with Rudrapur police station, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. The FIR was registered for alleged offences under
Sections 3/5 of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, and under Sections 318(4) and 319 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The said sections deal with conversion through coercion, force, allurement, cheating and impersonation and entail a punishment of up to seven years.

Siddiqui told the apex court that a frivolous complaint had been lodged against him only because he had married a woman from another community.

He submitted that he had an arranged marriage and both families were involved in it. However, soon after the wedding, some people and organisations lodged a complaint objecting to the wedding.

Siddiqui’s counsel pleaded that the appellant had been in jail for nearly six months and was entitled to bail.