The Supreme Court ruled that judges must not inject personal morality into bail or trial proceedings, setting aside a High Court order that denied bail based on 'moral' grounds.
SC reaffirms neutrality in bail and trial proceedings
The Supreme Court has cautioned trial and appellate judges against imposing personal moral judgments while deciding bail applications or conducting criminal trials. In Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that denied bail on the grounds that releasing the accused—charged with sexual exploitation of a minor—would be 'immoral.'
"Judges should not impose their personal views or value judgments on morality while deciding bail matters or conducting criminal trials,"the Court observed, emphasizing that bail must be determined on legal and factual parameters, not subjective ethical beliefs. The ruling reaffirms that the presumption of innocence and statutory considerations under Section 437 and 439 of the CrPC—not moral disapproval—must guide judicial discretion.
This decision strengthens constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and protects against arbitrary denial of liberty. It also aligns with precedents requiring judicial restraint in cases involving stigmatized offences. Practitioners can now cite this judgment to challenge bail denials based on expressive disapproval of the accused's character or conduct.
Citations
- Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
