Supreme Court: While considering the propriety of declining bail on considerations of morality and the perceived impact of an accused’s release on the social order and the “morals” of the prosecutrix’s family, a Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., set aside the High Court’s order, holding that Court must refrain from imposing personal views or value judgments on morality while adjudicating bail or criminal proceedings. Taking note of the appellant’s incarceration for more than 1 year and the time likely to be consumed in conclusion of the trial, the Court opined that a case for bail was made out and directed that the appellant be released on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions.
Background
The appellant, a tenant residing in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix, was accused of attempting to abduct the elder sister of the prosecutrix and sexually exploiting the prosecutrix for about a month, leading to registration of a case under the Sections 137(2), 65(2), 64(2)(m) and 87, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 3(A), 4(2) and 5(m)/6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 3(1)(w)(II) and 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The appellant’s regular bail application was rejected by Madhya Pradesh High Court by order dated 20 March 2026.
The appellant contended that he had been in custody since 10 September 2025, the present prosecution was a fallout of his relationship with the prosecutrix’s elder sister and that he had been falsely implicated to harass him. The State opposed bail, on the ground that the prosecutrix was a minor, and that the prosecution proposed to examine 15 witnesses, of whom 5 had been examined.
Analysis and Decision
The Court found that the High Court had declined bail on the consideration that release of the appellant might have ramifications on the social order and the “morals” of the prosecutrix’s family. The Court held that “Courts should refrain from imposing the personal views or value judgment of the Presiding Judge on morality or otherwise” while adjudicating a bail matter or even a criminal trial.
The Court further noted that the appellant had already undergone more than 1 year of incarceration and that the trial would take some more time to conclude. The Court opined that, in the present circumstances, a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned High Court order dated 20 March and directed the appellant to be produced before the jurisdictional Special Court within 7 days and thereafter released on bail on appropriate terms and conditions, subject to his being in custody in the connected criminal appeal challenging his conviction in the other case.
[Kanha v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2011, decided on 23-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: 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 the Respondents: Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Shukla, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
