‘They get calls every day that they’ll be killed’: How a conversion case upended a family in UP’s Shamli

The arrests followed a police case over Ayush Malik’s religion and marriage. Ayush was married to Chandni Qureshi, but his father, Devraj Singh Malik, alleged that Chandni’s family had unlawfully converted him to Islam. The allegation led to an FIR in Shamli on June 6.

Before the FIR, Ayush had released a video saying he converted to Islam in 2007, years before meeting Chandni. A separate video showed him doing namaz. Despite his statement, the police continued their investigation and arrested Chandni, her father and six others. They were accused in the conversion-related case.

Ayush later appeared in another video saying he had accepted Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma. His relatives said he had converted back and was staying away from the media. The family eventually received bail after Devraj’s lawyer told the court that both sides had reached a compromise, though Ayush’s friend said the compromise involved pressure to convert back.

A habeas corpus petition is a legal request asking a court to bring a detained person before it and examine whether the detention is lawful. It protects personal liberty by requiring authorities or others holding someone to justify that confinement. The petition can also let the court hear the person’s own wishes.

Ayush’s friend said Ayush was being “confined illegally” at home. The friend helped him contact Sultan Qari, who approached the Association for Protection of Civil Rights. Ayush’s counsel then filed the petition in the Allahabad High Court. The petition said Ayush had acted freely, embraced Islam without coercion, and married Chandni against his father’s wishes.

The move mattered because Ayush’s account differed sharply from his father’s complaint. His earlier video said he had converted in 2007, before meeting Chandni. The available article records the petition and its claims, but it does not provide the High Court’s final ruling.

The case produced eight arrests in total. Those arrested included Chandni Qureshi, her father and six other people. The arrests came after Devraj Singh Malik alleged that Chandni’s family had unlawfully converted his son, Ayush, to Islam.

The police investigation continued even after Ayush released a video saying he had converted in 2007, before meeting Chandni. The article says his statement did not change the investigation. Chandni and her family were jailed for 47 days, while the case remained under police scrutiny.

They were later granted bail by a local court in Shamli. Devraj’s lawyer, Ishpal Singh, told the court that the two sides had reached a compromise. Ayush’s friend disputed the circumstances, saying Ayush agreed to convert back because he feared for Chandni’s safety. The article does not state that the arrests were finally overturned.

Ayush’s first account was that his conversion happened in 2007, years before he met Chandni Qureshi. He expressed this in a video released before the June 6 FIR. That statement directly challenged his father’s allegation that Chandni’s family had converted him.

In the habeas corpus petition, Ayush’s counsel presented a fuller legal position. The petition said Ayush had renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam “of his own free will and volition.” It also said the conversion involved no coercion, undue influence or inducement. The petition described his marriage to Chandni as against his father’s wishes.

Ayush later appeared in a video saying he had accepted Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma. He performed puja and had a completely shaved head. His friend later claimed that Ayush agreed to convert back under pressure during the compromise, then returned to Islam after Chandni’s family received bail.

The Allahabad High Court was asked to examine whether Ayush’s conversion and marriage reflected his own free choice. This mattered because his father alleged unlawful conversion, while Ayush’s account said he had converted years earlier and married Chandni willingly. The dispute therefore involved both religious choice and personal liberty.

Ayush’s counsel submitted that he had renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam “of his own free will and volition.” The petition denied coercion, undue influence and inducement. It also said Ayush had married Chandni against his father’s wishes. These were the central claims placed before the court.

The article does not describe a final High Court finding or order. It does show that Ayush used the petition to challenge his father’s version and to present his own account of the conversion, marriage and alleged confinement. The case’s later developments included a fresh kidnapping complaint by Devraj on September 29.

The case had severe consequences for Chandni Qureshi’s family. Chandni, her father and six others were arrested and remained in jail for 47 days. Her cousin said the family lived in daily fear and had been harassed. He alleged that local goons came to their home, threatened to kill them and threatened to involve them in more cases.

The family also withdrew from ordinary community life. A neighbour said they were scared and had not met neighbours since the case. Police officers declined to discuss the matter on record. One officer acknowledged political pressure, while another said the arrests followed legal procedure after a complaint named the accused.

The bail process brought a reported compromise. Devraj’s lawyer told the court that both sides had settled. Ayush’s friend said Ayush agreed to convert back because he feared for Chandni’s safety, then returned to Islam after bail. The article does not specifically report police surveillance.

India’s legal framework is designed to protect an adult’s ability to follow a religion, express personal choices and live with dignity. Constitutional protections commonly relevant here include equality before law under Article 14, freedoms under Article 19, life and personal liberty under Article 21, and freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25. These protections limit coercive state action.

Indian courts have also recognised that an adult’s choice of spouse is part of personal liberty and autonomy. The Special Marriage Act provides a civil legal route for marriage between people from different religious communities. In a case like Ayush’s, these principles would be relevant to whether his conversion, marriage and residence reflected his own free choice.

These protections do not remove the need to investigate a genuine criminal complaint. They require authorities to distinguish voluntary adult decisions from coercion, fraud or unlawful confinement, and to follow fair legal procedure. The supplied article does not discuss these constitutional provisions or state a final ruling in Ayush’s case.