The Supreme Court has cautioned judges against allowing their personal beliefs or notions of morality to influence decisions in bail matters or criminal trials.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar made the observation while granting bail to a man accused of sexually exploiting a minor girl. The Court set aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had rejected his bail plea.
The High Court had cited concerns about the possible impact of the accused’s release on social order and the “morals” of the victim’s family while refusing bail.
The Supreme Court disagreed with that approach.
The Bench observed that courts must avoid bringing the personal views or value judgments of the presiding judge on morality into judicial decisions concerning bail or the criminal trial itself.
The case involved allegations against a man who had been living as a tenant in the neighbourhood of the minor’s family. According to the prosecution case, he had earlier faced allegations concerning an attempt to abduct the victim’s elder sister, who was married, resulting in a separate criminal case.
The minor subsequently informed her mother that the accused had sexually exploited her over a period of around one month. A separate case was then registered against him under 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.
After the High Court refused bail, the accused approached the Supreme Court. He argued that the case was connected to his relationship with the elder sister and had been initiated to harass him.
The State opposed the bail plea and informed the Supreme Court that the accused had already been convicted in the case concerning the elder sister, though that conviction was under challenge.
While considering the bail request, the Supreme Court noted that the accused had spent more than a year in custody and that the trial in the present matter was likely to take additional time.
The Bench concluded that the circumstances justified granting bail and accordingly overturned the High Court’s March 20 order.
The Court, however, made it clear that the bail granted in the present case would not result in the accused’s release if he remained in custody in connection with the separate criminal appeal challenging his conviction in the other case.