UP man charged under ant-conversion law, denied bail

The bail application of one Dharmendra Srivastava, who had been charged by the police under the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law, has bene rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Singh.

The presiding judge, in his order, observed that on perusal of record and evidence it appears that the accused applicant was putting pressure on his wife and minor son to adopt Muslim religion and for this purpose, he thrashed his wife and son several times.

His wife Smita Srivastava had stated in her statement that Dharmendra had visited Ajmer with Ajmeri Hassan and had purchased garments such as cap, kurta, etc.

Dharmendra had thrashed her after returning from Ajmer when she refused to adopt Muslim religion. She had informed her landlord about this and the latter testified before the police.

The investigation officer had recovered a blue colour kurta, black and white colour caps and and plastic bottle and described in the memo that it had been collected in the case of unlawful religion conversion matter.

On perusal of the record and evidence and considering the circumstances the court found that the bail application of accused Dharmendra was liable to be rejected.

According to additional district government counsel, Shiv Bhagwan, the complainant of the case is father of the Smita Srivastava who had stated in his report that he had married his daughter to Dharmendra Srivastava of Kalyanpur area with Hindu rituals in March 2015.

The couple have a five-year-old son.

Dharmendra’s activities have been suspicious for the last two years and he had started thrashing Smita. One day he brought a book wrapped in green cloth and asked her not to touch it.

He was adopting Muslim religion and he forced Smita to the convert but she refused.

In January, he again forced Smita for conversion and made an abortive attempt to kill her.

This time, the landlord informed the police and Dharmendra was arrested, the ADGC added.

Dharmendra, in his bail application, claimed that his in-laws were making undue intervention in his married life, resulting in disputes. He said that neither had he adopted the Muslim religion nor forced his wife and son to convert.


Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Stay Connected