Opening The Rift
therift
© 2026 The Rift. All Rights Reserved.
Judges Should Refrain From Imposing Personal Views On Morality In Bail Cases Or Criminal Trials: SC
Courts must refrain from imposing personal views or value judgments on morality while adjudicating bail matters or criminal trials.
Key Takeaways
1 of 3
Automatically generated. Read full article for complete context.
It is definitely beyond an iota of doubt a matter of extremely utmost paramount importance which most of all Judges themselves should always pay heed to whether of District Courts or of High Courts or even of Supreme Court that none other than the Supreme Court itself in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9810/2026) that was pronounced just recently on 23 September 2026 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has minced absolutely just no words whatsoever to hold indubitably that Judges should refrain from imposing their personal views or value judgments on morality while deciding bail matters or conducting criminal trials. It must be noted that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and so also Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul S Chandurkar made the key observation most commendably while setting aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused bail to a man who was accused of sexually exploiting a minor girl. It is worth paying singular attention that the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur had declined bail to the accused on the specious ground that releasing the accused could have ramifications for the social order and the “morals” of the victim’s family.
By any reckoning, one has to concede that this Jabalpur High Court’s most strange reasoning was very rightly taken exception to by the Apex Court. It merits noting that the top court was most unequivocal in observing that, “We are of the view that Courts should refrain from imposing the personal views or value judgment of the Presiding JudgeJudicial AuthorityThe judge who is in charge of a court proceeding or trial. on morality or otherwise while adjudicating a matter relating to bail, or even a criminal trial of an accused.” This we notice many times but I am sure that from henceforth the Judges of all the Courts whether of Sessions Courts or of High Courts or even of Apex Court itself would pay heed to what the Apex Court Bench has held in this leading case! No denying or disputing it!
It must be laid bare that this leading case first and foremost emerged from allegations that the accused who lived as a tenant in the victim’s neighbourhood had attempted to abduct the victim’s elder sister despite being married. It needs to be borne in mind that a separate criminal case was registered against him over that incident. What also has to be noticed is that the minor victim (younger sister) later told her mother that the accused had sexually exploited her for about a month, leading to the registration of the present case.
What also cannot go unnoticed is that the accused was booked under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). After the accused was refused to be granted bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the accused moved the Supreme Court. The top court after perusing the facts of the case and the material on record, it noted that the accused had already spent more than a year in custody and that the trial would take further time to conclude.
It was thus entirely in order that the Apex Court deemed it fit to set aside the Jabalpur High Court’s March 20 order and granted bail to the accused. Very rightly so! It also cannot be lost sight of that the top court clarified that the bail order would not affect his custody in the connected criminal appeal where he has assailed his conviction by the Trial Court.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and so also Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul S Chandurkar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh.”
As we see, the Bench while specifying the purpose of the petition states in para 3 that, “Appellant(s) is aggrieved by order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore (briefly the ‘High Court’ hereinafter), rejecting the regular bail application of the appellant.”
As things stands, the Bench while specifying the charges leveled on the accused lays bare in para 4 disclosing that, “Appellant is an accused in Crime No.548/2025 registered at Police Station-Station Road, District-Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh under Sections 137(2), 65(2), 64(2) (m) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’); Sections 3(A), 4(2) and 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’); and Sections 3(1)(w)(II) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 5 observing that, “The accusation against the appellant is 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 Crime No.259/2025. Thereafter, the victim informed her mother that appellant had sexually exploited her for about a month, leading to registration of the present case.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “Appellant is in custody since 10.09.2025.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 7 that, “This Court had issued notice vide order dated 24.07.2026, pursuant to which respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh has filed counter affidavit to which appellant has filed rejoinder affidavit.”
On the one hand, the Bench specifies in para 8 stating that, “Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is a fallout of his relationship with the elder sister of the so called victim. It is only to harass the appellant for his involvement with the elder daughter that the present case has been registered. In any view of the matter, appellant has been in custody for more than one year now. Therefore, appellant should be enlarged on bail.”
On the other hand, the Bench then points out in para 9 mentioning that, “Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh, on the other hand, submits that appellant has been convicted in the case arising out of Crime NO.259/2025 on 01.07.2026. In the present case, prosecutrix is a minor girl and the accusation against the appellant is serious. Insofar the trial is concerned, prosecution proposes to examine 15 witnesses, out of which 05 witnesses have been examined. In such circumstances, releasing the appellant on bail may not be appropriate.”
Key Case Metrics
Status of the Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh Case
1+
Years in Custody
15
Total Witnesses Proposed
5
Witnesses Examined
VISUALS BY THE RIFT
As a corollary, the Bench then further points out in para 10 stating that, “Responding to the above, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has preferred an appeal against his conviction and is confident of success in the appeal. Insofar the present case is concerned, he submits that he has been falsely implicated in this case only with a view to teach him a lesson.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 11 that, “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 12 that, “From a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the High Court declined to grant bail to the appellant, taking the view that granting of bail may have ramifications on the social order and the “morals” of the victim’s family.”
Most significantly, most commendably, most forthrightly and so also most remarkably, the Bench encapsulates in para 13 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “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.”
Most rationally, the Bench propounds in para 14 holding aptly that, “Insofar the present case is concerned, 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.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 15 directing and holding that, “That being the position, the impugned order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the High Court is set aside.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 16 directing and holding that, “Consequently, we direct that the appellant shall be produced before the concerned jurisdictional Special Court within a maximum period of 07 days from today, whereafter he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate. This bail order would be subject to the appellant being in custody in the connected criminal appeal where he has assailed his conviction by the Trial Court.”
It would also be worthwhile to note that the Bench then directs and holds in para 17 that, “Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by aptly directing and holding in para 18 that, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
In a nutshell, it is incumbent that what the Apex Court has underscored in this notable judgment that Judges should refrain from imposing personal views on morality in bail cases or criminal trials needs to be implemented in totality and most strictly. Of course, I must concede that it is a matter of great solace to note that the Supreme Court has made it indubitably crystal clear that in bail cases or criminal trials the cases or trials must be decided most strictly in consonance on the basis of law and facts which stands completely free from the Presiding Judge’s own personal subjective notions of morality or otherwise! It thus merits no reiteration that what the top court has underscored must be most strictly implemented by the Judges of all Courts from the Sessions Courts, to the High Courts and so also the Apex Court! There can be just no denying or disputing it!
Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Rift.
