Judges Must Avoid Personal Views On Morality While Hearing Bail Pleas Or Criminal Trials: Supreme Court
The Court sets aside the MP High Court order denying bail on grounds of the 'Morals' of the victim's family.
While hearing a bail plea or even in a criminal trial, the personal views or value judgment of the presiding judge on morality must be avoided, observed the Supreme Court.
“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.”, observed a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar, while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which had declined to grant bail, taking the view that granting of bail may have ramifications on the social order and the “morals” of the victim's family.
The accusation against the appellant was that he was a tenant residing in the neighbourhood of the victim. Despite being a married person, he attempted to abduct the elder sister of the victim leading to registration of the FIR under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for an alleged offence of abduction of a minor belonging to a reserved caste, and sexual exploitation.
The accused denied the allegations saying that the criminal proceedings launched against him were meant to harass him for his relationship with the prosecutrix.
Aggrieved by the High Court's dismissal of his bail plea citing ramifications on the social order and the “morals” of the victim's family, the accused moved to the Supreme Court.
At the outset, the Supreme Court expressed disagreement with the High Court's order imposing its moral judgment in a bail plea.
Moreover, noting that the Appellant-accused has been in custody since September 2025 i.e., for more than a year, and the trial would take some time to get over, the Court deemed fit to enlarge the Appellant-accused on a bail.
“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 ordered.
Cause Title: KANHA @ KANHAIYA SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1003
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Yamak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Brijesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Joshi, Adv. Ms. Mahima Pandey, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, AOR Mr. Surya Pratap Tyagi, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Shukla, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR