Preethy Mary and Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025
The ruling acts as a check on misuse of conversion laws and scheduled offence provisions under the NIA Act in politically or communally sensitive cases.
Judgement Details
Court
Special NIA Court, Bilaspur
Date of Decision
2 August 2025
Judges
District & Sessions Judge Sirajuddin Qureshi
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
Two Christian nuns, Preethy Mary and Vandana Francis, were arrested by Chhattisgarh Police on July 25, 2025, from Durg police station.
-
Allegations were made by Bajrang Dal members, accusing them of forcible religious conversion and human trafficking of three adult women from Narayanpur.
-
They were charged under Section 143 of the BNS, 2023, and Section 4 of the State Religious Freedom Law.
-
The Durg Sessions Court declined jurisdiction as human trafficking is a scheduled offence under the NIA Act, thus transferring the matter to the NIA Court in Bilaspur.
-
The accused claimed the three women were traveling voluntarily for employment at their institution, and parents of the women filed affidavits supporting this claim.
Issues
-
Whether the arrest and judicial custody of the petitioners were based on credible evidence or mere apprehension and suspicion?
-
Whether the petitioners posed a flight risk or had any criminal antecedents justifying denial of bail?
-
Whether there was any material to show coercion or inducement for religious conversion or human trafficking?
-
Whether continued custody was necessary in the absence of a request for custodial interrogation?
Judgement
-
The Special NIA Court granted regular bail to both accused.
-
The court found that the FIR was based on mere suspicion and apprehension, not concrete evidence.
-
There is no prior criminal record was established for either accused.
-
The arrest memo confirmed that the petitioners were not habitual or dangerous offenders.
-
Affidavits from the victims’ parents and statements by two of the girls indicated no coercion or inducement for conversion or trafficking.
-
The investigating agency did not seek custodial interrogation, nor did they place evidence justifying continued detention.
-
The Court concluded that there was no reasonable ground to deny bail.
Held
-
The Regular bail granted, subject to: Execution of a bail bond of ₹50,000 each with two sureties of the same amount. Surrender of passports to the court. Mandatory fortnightly reporting to the Station House Officer (SHO) of their residential jurisdiction.
-
The objection filed by the NIA and opposition by the informant’s counsel were rejected in view of lack of evidence supporting the allegations.
Analysis
-
The judgment is a clear reiteration of bail principles that is Bail is the rule, jail is the exception, especially when:
-
No custodial interrogation is required
-
No risk of absconding exists
-
No prior record of criminality is shown
-
-
The Court’s focus on victim autonomy (as the girls were adults) and lack of coercion underscores a fact-based, rights-respecting approach.
-
The order also highlights judicial restraint against criminalising religious or charitable activity without firm proof.
-
The ruling acts as a check on misuse of conversion laws and scheduled offence provisions under the NIA Act in politically or communally sensitive cases.