An extension has been granted by the Supreme Court today till March 19 for the submission of rejoinders in the case concerning the cancellation of bail granted to Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui. 

Siddiqui stands accused of orchestrating an illegal mass religious conversion racket in Uttar Pradesh, a matter of grave concern that has garnered widespread attention.

During the proceedings, Assistant Advocate General Garima Prasad requested additional time to file supplementary submissions in response to the counter filed by Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui. 

The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, acknowledged the request and has accordingly rescheduled the hearing for April 2.

The case against Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui dates back to September 2021 when he was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terror Squad for his alleged involvement in an illicit religious conversion operation alongside Mohammad Umar Gautam and others. The accusations against Siddiqui are severe, with claims suggesting that he illegally converted the religion of over 1000 individuals across the state of Uttar Pradesh.

According to the prosecution, Siddiqui purportedly engaged in mass conversions from Hinduism to Islam through various means, including the utilization of a YouTube channel to promote Islamic teachings. 

It is alleged that substantial funds were amassed by Siddiqui to finance these activities, constituting an offense under the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The charges filed against Siddiqui and his associates include sections 417, 120-B, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 298, 121-A, 123 I.P.C., and Section 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. 

Notably, last year, the Supreme Court had permitted Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui to attend a funeral in Uttar Pradesh, albeit with stringent bail conditions that restricted his movement to the Delhi National Capital Region. This decision came in the wake of bail conditions imposed by the Allahabad High Court in April 2023.

Furthermore, the court was apprised that bail for some other accused had been revoked, prompting the need to incorporate these details into the ongoing proceedings. The complexity and sensitivity of the case necessitate careful consideration of all relevant factors before reaching a verdict.

In a parallel development, two co-accused individuals, Irfan Khan alias Irfan Shaikh and Dr. Faraz Shah, faced similar circumstances wherein their bail applications were initially rejected by the trial court. However, both were subsequently granted bail by the Supreme Court and the High Court, respectively, underscoring the dynamic nature of the legal proceedings.

Case: State of UP Vs Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui.