A sessions court in Gujarat's Kheda district has firmly rejected the bail applications of two individuals accused in a high-profile case involving alleged foreign-funded religious conversions. The court delivered its verdict on Saturday, siding with the prosecution's arguments concerning the scale of the alleged operation and the potential flight risk of the accused.
Court Cites Evidence of Widespread Network
The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, MJ Brahmabhatt, denied bail to Steven Macwan (40) and Smitul Mahida (27), who have been in custody at Bilodara sub-jail since their arrest in September. The case, registered at Nadiad West police station, accuses them of illegally converting members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities, including minors, to Christianity using foreign funds.
The court placed significant weight on the prosecution's submission that forensic analysis of devices seized from the accused revealed their "modus operandi" extended to several other Indian states, with financial gain being a primary motive. The prosecution alleged the accused, trustees of the Restoration and Revival Foundation Trust, targeted communities not only in Gujarat districts like Dahod, Tapi, and Panchmahal but also in states including Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Delhi.
Prosecution's Case: Large-Scale Operations and Flight Risk
Investigators informed the court that the accused had converted people, including minors, in seven distinct batches. When Macwan was arrested, police reported rescuing 59 individuals, nine of whom were minors. The prosecution also highlighted an ongoing probe into a fund of Rs 1.33 crore deposited into the accused's accounts from within India and abroad.
Public Prosecutor Dhaval Barot stated that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) had retrieved deleted data containing around one lakh names, indicating a vast network. The court also considered an affidavit from the investigating officer noting the accused's foreign connections, which raised legitimate concerns about them fleeing the country if released.
Furthermore, the judge agreed that releasing the accused on bail could lead to witness intimidation, especially of minors and SC/ST community members, and potential evidence tampering.
Defence Alleges Malicious Complaint for Publicity
In their bail plea, the accused challenged the very foundation of the case. They argued that the First Information Report (FIR) was based on "false accusations" by a complainant who was not personally affected by any alleged conversion. Their plea stated the complainant, identified as a member of Hindu Dharma Sena and president of a Gau Raksha Samiti, filed the case merely to gain publicity.
The defence contended that the FIR did not mention the accused luring or coercing the complainant. They also pointed out that under the invoked sections of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the complainant should ideally be a minor, woman, or SC/ST member—which he is not. The plea labelled the complaint a "pre-planned act" and argued that prolonged incarceration amounted to a "pre-trial conviction."
Despite these arguments, the court found the prosecution's evidence concerning the pan-India nature of the alleged racket, the financial trail, and the risk of evidence tampering compelling enough to keep the accused in judicial custody as the investigation proceeds.
