The Supreme Court on Monday (January 27) criticized the Allahabad High Court for its refusal to grant bail in a case concerning alleged unlawful religious conversion.
The Court expressed dissatisfaction, noting that the High Court's denial of bail appeared to disregard established principles governing bail and raised concerns about the motivations of the presiding officer, Live Law reported.
The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, emphasized that bail applications in cases involving less severe allegations should not escalate to the Supreme Court.
The Court remarked, “We can understand that the trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail, be it any offence. However, at least, it was expected of the High Court to muster the courage and exercise its discretion judiciously," reported Live Law.
The case involved a Maulvi arrested under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, for allegedly converting a mentally challenged minor to Islam. The prosecution alleged the child was forcibly kept at a Madarasa and converted, leading to charges under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the 2021 Act.
The Maulvi, however, contended that he had provided the abandoned minor with shelter out of humanitarian concern, with no coercion or forced conversion involved. He sought bail on the grounds of having already spent 11 months in custody, while the trial remained incomplete, and witnesses had already been examined.
Both the trial court and the High Court denied bail, prompting the Maulvi to approach the Supreme Court.
Overturning the High Court's decision, the apex court observed, "We are conscious of the fact that grant of bail is a matter of discretion. But discretion has to be exercised judicially keeping in mind the well settled principles of grant of bail. Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious. The petitioner is going to be put to trial and ultimately if the prosecution succeeds in establishing its case, he would be punished.”
The Court expressed disappointment with trial courts and High Courts, stating that despite numerous seminars and workshops on bail-related jurisprudence, many judges fail to exercise their discretion appropriately.
The Supreme Court also criticized the prosecution for opposing bail without justifiable grounds, contributing to unnecessary delays and burdening higher courts with appeals.
Allowing the appeal, the Court directed the trial court to release the Maulvi on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. It reiterated that while trials must proceed, pre-trial incarceration for extended periods in cases without grave charges is unwarranted.
The Court expressed dissatisfaction, noting that the High Court's denial of bail appeared to disregard established principles governing bail and raised concerns about the motivations of the presiding officer, Live Law reported.
The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, emphasized that bail applications in cases involving less severe allegations should not escalate to the Supreme Court.
The Court remarked, “We can understand that the trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail, be it any offence. However, at least, it was expected of the High Court to muster the courage and exercise its discretion judiciously," reported Live Law.
The case involved a Maulvi arrested under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, for allegedly converting a mentally challenged minor to Islam. The prosecution alleged the child was forcibly kept at a Madarasa and converted, leading to charges under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the 2021 Act.
The Maulvi, however, contended that he had provided the abandoned minor with shelter out of humanitarian concern, with no coercion or forced conversion involved. He sought bail on the grounds of having already spent 11 months in custody, while the trial remained incomplete, and witnesses had already been examined.
Both the trial court and the High Court denied bail, prompting the Maulvi to approach the Supreme Court.
Overturning the High Court's decision, the apex court observed, "We are conscious of the fact that grant of bail is a matter of discretion. But discretion has to be exercised judicially keeping in mind the well settled principles of grant of bail. Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious. The petitioner is going to be put to trial and ultimately if the prosecution succeeds in establishing its case, he would be punished.”
The Court expressed disappointment with trial courts and High Courts, stating that despite numerous seminars and workshops on bail-related jurisprudence, many judges fail to exercise their discretion appropriately.
The Supreme Court also criticized the prosecution for opposing bail without justifiable grounds, contributing to unnecessary delays and burdening higher courts with appeals.
Allowing the appeal, the Court directed the trial court to release the Maulvi on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. It reiterated that while trials must proceed, pre-trial incarceration for extended periods in cases without grave charges is unwarranted.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment