Giving bail to a person booked under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, the Supreme Court last month admitted that the state could not have any objection to the man’s contradiction marriage as the couple “married as per the wishes of their respective parents”.
In an order on May 19, the relief of the Supreme Court by a bench of Justice BV Nagrathana and Satish Chandra Sharma, after Aman Siddiqui, spent nearly six months in jail, voluntarily arranged and married a Hindu woman to marry a Hindu woman in a wedding and give a Hindu woman to arranged and consent.
Siddiqui’s lawyer told the apex court that “the families voluntarily decided to arrange the marriage of the appellant with the woman. However, some individuals and some organizations objected to the marriage soon after the marriage”.
Due to this a cedar was recorded at Rudrapur police station Uttarakhand On December 12, 2024, against Siddiqui, two days after her wedding on 10 December. Siddiqui’s parents were also booked, but later they were granted anticipatory bail.
Siddiqui’s lawyer also told the bench of the Supreme Court that if bail is granted, Siddiqui and his wife live separately from their families and “continue to live peacefully without any obstruction”.
Even the state opposed the bail argument, the bench registered in its order, “We see that the defendant – the state may not have any objection to the appellant and his wife to live together as they are married according to the wishes of their respective parents and families.
According to Hindu rituals a day after their marriage, Siddiqui was designed to sign an undertaking by his wife’s cousin brothers, assuring that he would not be “any kind of physical and mental loss” and “he would not force him to convert either physically and mentally”. The venture further stated that his wife would “be free to practice Hinduism” and “free to follow all Hindu traditions with complete freedom” and Siddiqui would not interfere with his religious beliefs.
The story continues below this advertisement
The Uttarakhand High Court rejected Siddiqui’s bail plea on 28 February. Prior to the High Court, Siddiqui presented that his mother was one Hindu married a Muslim person And did not change. He further said that he also followed his mother’s religion, in which his parents also perform a thread ceremony for him.
The High Court was also told that Siddiqui’s father had separated from his joint family “so that the applicant (Siddiqui’s) mother could comfortably follow his customs and the rituals of the Kumaoni Hindu family”. Meanwhile, the state alleged that Siddiqui had suppressed his father’s religion. The High Court eventually refused to grant bail.
Station (T) FIR (T) anticipatory bail (T) Religious Conversion (T) Hindu Rituals (T) Uttarakhand High Court (T) Indian Express
