The Supreme Court recently said that judges should refrain from imposing their personal views or value judgments on morality while deciding bail matters or conducting criminal trials. [Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh]

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar made the observation while setting aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused bail to a man accused of sexually exploiting a minor girl.

The High Court had declined bail on the ground that releasing the accused could have ramifications for the social order and the “morals” of the victim’s family.

The Supreme Court took exception to the High Court’s reasoning.

“We are of the view that Courts should refrain from imposing the personal views or value judgment of the Presiding Judge on morality or otherwise while adjudicating a matter relating to bail, or even a criminal trial of an accused,” the apex court said in an order passed on September 23.

The case arose from allegations that the accused, who lived as a tenant in the victim’s neighbourhood, had attempted to abduct the victim’s elder sister despite being married. A separate criminal case was registered against him over that incident.

The minor victim (younger sister) later told her mother that the accused had sexually exploited her for about a month, leading to the registration of the present case.

The accused was booked under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

After the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to grant him bail, the accused moved the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the accused argued that the case arose from his relationship with the victim’s elder sister and had been registered to harass him.

The State opposed the plea and told the Court that he had been convicted in the case concerning the elder sister, although that conviction was under challenge.

The Court noted that the accused had already spent more than a year in custody and that the trial would take further time to conclude.

“Insofar the present case is concerned, we find that appellant has already undergone more than one year of incarceration. It would take some more time for the trial to conclude. In such circumstances, we are of the view that a case for bail is made out,” the Court said.

It, therefore, set aside the High Court’s March 20 order and granted bail to the accused.

The Bench also clarified that the bail order would not affect his custody in the connected criminal appeal where he has assailed his conviction by the trial court.

Advocate Yamak Sharma, Brijesh Sharma, Utkarsh Joshi, Mahima Pandey, Alabhya Dhamija, and Surya Pratap Tyagi appeared for the accused.

Advocates Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Raghvendra Shukla, and Pashupathi Nath Razdan appeared for the State.

[Read Order]