New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (January 27) came down heavily on the Allahabad high court for “ignoring the well settled principles of grant of bail” while rejecting a petitioner’s bail plea and said that it expected the high court to at least “muster the courage” to grant bail.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing the matter concerning a Maulvi accused of carrying out unlawful conversion. The petitioner was charged under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The top court questioned the lower courts over their failure to exercise discretion while granting bail. “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,” the bench observed.
The Supreme Court said that if the charges are not grave – relating to murder, dacoity or rape – then the bail plea ideally shouldn’t reach the top court. The apex court stressed on the lower courts’ discretionary power in granting bails for less serious offences, especially when the allegations are yet to be proved with conclusive evidence.
‘Discretion doesn’t mean the judges’ whims and fancies’
The petitioner had been accused of forcefully converting a minor with intellectual disability. The prosecution argued that the child had been kept in a Madrasa against his will and converted to Islam, LiveLaw reported.
The petitioner said that the child’s parents had abandoned him and that he was given shelter by the Maulvi purely out of humanitarian concern. No religious conversion had taken place, he said.
He sought release on the grounds of having already spent 11 months in custody, the trial still being incomplete, and the prosecution had already examined its witnesses, the report said.
After both the trial court and the high court denied him bail, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court.
Overturning the high court’s decision, the top court said, “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.”
‘Supreme court flooded with bail pleas’
The court also passed searing remarks over the conduct of trial courts. “…every year so many conferences, seminars, workshops etc. are held to make the trial judges understand how to exercise their discretion while considering a bail application as if the trial judges do not know the scope of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 483 of the BNSS,” the court said.
“At times when the High Court declines bail in the matters of the present type, it gives an impression that altogether different considerations weighed with the presiding officer ignoring the well settled principles of grant of bail,” the court observed.
The top court also reprimanded the prosecution for arguing against the grant of bail in a case like this, leading to backlogs and flooding of bail petitions in the apex court.
“We fail to understand what harm would have befallen on the prosecution if the petitioner would have been released on bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions. This is one of the reasons why the high courts and now unfortunately the Supreme Court of the country is flooded with bail applications.”, the court said.
The Court allowed the appeal noting that “although the trial is in progress and the prosecution witnesses are being examined yet it is a fit case to order release of the petitioner on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.