On September 30, Bareilly court delivered a landmark judgment, convicting Mohammed Alim in a “love jihad” case. He was found guilty of deceiving a woman into a relationship under the false pretence of marriage, coercing her into sexual relations, and subjecting her to violence and threats. Alim had presented himself as “Anand” and falsely claimed to be Hindu.
The court noted that cases like this contribute to efforts to create conditions similar to those in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where coercive religious conversions are widespread. Mohammed Alim has been convicted under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Sabir, Alim’s father, was also convicted under Section 504 for insulting and threatening the victim. The court strongly condemned such actions and highlighted the issue of “Love Jihad.” Interestingly, left-liberals, self-proclaimed fact-checkers, activists, and Islamists frequently assert that the concept of “Love Jihad” is merely a fabrication of Hindu organisations and that no such incidents occur in India. However, the judgment in this case demonstrated that incidents of “Love Jihad” are indeed real and require immediate attention from law enforcement and the judiciary.
According to the victim’s complaint, she was a student at a computer coaching centre in Bareilly, where she met a man who introduced himself as Anand. He appeared to be Hindu and wore a sacred thread (Kalawa) on his wrist. The accused would accompany her to and from the centre, and over time, they developed a romantic relationship.
Later, Alim proposed marriage to the victim and took her to the Radha Krishna Mandir in Bareilly on March 13, 2022. At the Mandir, he conducted a fake marriage ritual by applying sindoor (vermilion) to her hairline, convincing her that they were married according to Hindu customs. However, the court observed that no priest was present during this sham wedding, and no legal rituals were performed to validate the marriage.
After the ritual, Alim led the victim to a friend’s room near Rohilkhand University. In the room, he coerced her into sexual relations. He filmed the sexual act and took indecent photographs of her. He used the explicit material he recorded that day to blackmail her into further sexual relations, often at Rajrani Hotel in Bareilly. Whenever the victim resisted, he threatened to release the photos and videos. When she became pregnant, he pressured her into having an abortion. On May 5, 2023, he forced her to take an abortion pill, and on May 11, with the help of his family, he took her to a nursing home in Hafizganj, where she underwent the procedure.
The victim’s ordeal deepened when she visited his house in Jadaupur, where she learned that his real name was Mohammed Alim and that he was not Hindu, as he had led her to believe. Alim’s family, including his father Sabir, pressured the victim to convert to Islam. They physically assaulted her and threatened to kill her if she pursued legal action against Alim. They also pressured her to abort the child before discussing marriage. Fearing for her life, the victim left the house and subsequently filed a complaint against Alim and his family on May 27, 2023.
According to court documents, the victim became pregnant in March 2023. In April, she informed Alim of her pregnancy and requested that he take her home, but he refused, saying, “I won’t take you home; just get rid of the baby.” In May, he came to Devernia Station and forcibly tried to make her take unwanted pills. When she refused, he started beating her at the station and then left. She followed him.
Upon arriving in Jadaupur, the victim encountered Alim’s mother, who asked, “Who are you?” When the victim inquired about her son Anand, his mother responded, “There is no one by that name.” After showing a photo of Alim and asking again, his mother revealed that his real name was Alim. The victim was shocked to discover that he, who had claimed to be Hindu, was actually Muslim. She explained everything to his mother, who then said, “You should convert your religion.”
The prosecution’s case was bolstered by the testimonies of key witnesses. The manager of Rajrani Hotel stated that the victim looked distressed whenever she arrived at the hotel with Alim. He noted that she would always stand apart while Alim filled out the necessary registration details, using his real identity in the hotel records. This detail supported the victim’s claims that she remained unaware of Alim’s true identity for a significant time. Additionally, other witnesses, including the investigating officers, confirmed the victim’s timeline of events, further strengthening the case against Alim.
In its detailed judgment, the court explicitly identified the case as an instance of “Love Jihad.” The court noted that Alim masqueraded as a Hindu to deceive the victim into a relationship based on false pretences. Furthermore, it highlighted that Alim’s actions—using deception to coerce the victim into sexual relations and subsequently pressuring her to convert to Islam—were indicative of a broader and troubling trend. The judge stated, “This is not merely a case of personal deceit; it reflects a systematic effort to manipulate and exploit vulnerable individuals under the guise of religion.”
The court further drew parallels between this incident and the widespread forced religious conversions occurring in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The judge cautioned that if such incidents are not addressed, they could undermine the secular foundation of Indian society. He stated, “If we permit these practices to persist unchecked, we risk fostering conditions in India akin to those in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where religious freedoms are restricted and women are systematically targeted for conversion.”
The court also expressed concerns about the potential for foreign funding behind such activities. It suggested that the systematic targeting of vulnerable women for religious conversion through deceit may not be an isolated issue. The judge stated, “The possibility of foreign funding in these cases cannot be dismissed, as these actions seem to be part of a broader conspiracy aimed at destabilising the social fabric of the country.” The court made strong assertions that incidents like these go beyond individual offences and pose a significant threat to societal harmony and secularism. It emphasised, “The systematic targeting of women under the guise of love to achieve larger demographic and religious objectives is not just a crime against the individual but an affront to the nation’s unity.”
