In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court critiqued the Allahabad High Court for its hesitation to grant bail in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The apex court questioned whether extraneous factors influenced the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established principles of bail.
The case revolved around a Maulvi accused of forcibly converting a mentally challenged minor at a madrasa. The prosecution alleged the child was kept against his will and coerced into conversion. The accused countered, claiming he provided shelter purely out of compassion for the abandoned minor, with no coercion or religious motive. Despite these assertions and 11 months of custody without trial completion, bail had been denied at both the trial and high court levels.
The Supreme Court observed that while discretion is integral to granting bail, it must be exercised judiciously, free from prejudice or personal biases. Highlighting the gravity of the issue, the bench remarked:
“Discretion does not mean declining bail on whimsical grounds. Principles of justice must prevail, especially in cases where allegations lack conclusive evidence.”
The Court also expressed dismay over the judiciary’s reluctance to grant bail in cases involving less severe charges, such as those unrelated to heinous crimes like murder or rape. It lamented the burden on higher courts caused by avoidable appeals stemming from lower courts’ unwillingness to grant bail.
Calling for systemic introspection, the judgment underscored the need for judicial officers to better understand their discretionary powers under the Criminal Procedure Code. It noted that the backlog of cases could be mitigated if lower courts adhered to established guidelines.
The Court ultimately overturned the High Court’s decision and granted bail, emphasizing that the petitioner’s release, subject to appropriate conditions, posed no threat to the prosecution’s case. It reiterated that withholding bail unnecessarily undermines the efficiency of the judicial system, clogging it with avoidable disputes.
This ruling stands as a stark reminder of the need for judicial courage and consistency in upholding principles of justice, especially in an overburdened legal framework.
