SC quashes MP High Court’s bail order:Court says, ‘Judges should not impose their moral views in criminal cases’

The Supreme Court has said that courts must not impose their personal moral beliefs or value judgments in bail and criminal trial matters. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar made the observation in an order dated 23 September. The bench set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order rejecting bail in a sexual abuse case. The High Court had refused to grant bail, saying it could affect the social order and the ‘morality’ of the victim’s family. The Supreme Court granted bail to the accused, citing the fact that he had been in jail for more than a year and that the trial would take time. The Supreme Court said, “While deciding matters relating to bail or the criminal trial of an accused, courts should refrain from imposing the personal views or morality-based value judgments of the presiding judge.” The bench said that a reading of the High Court’s 20 March order showed that bail had been denied on the apprehension that it could affect the social order and the ‘morality’ of the victim’s family. Charges against the accused An FIR was registered against the accused in Madhya Pradesh’s Ratlam district. It invoked various sections of the BNS, along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused lived as a tenant in the victim’s neighbourhood. He is accused of attempting to abduct the victim’s elder sister despite being married. A case was registered following the incident. The victim later told her mother that the accused had sexually abused her for about a month. An FIR was subsequently registered in the present case. Defence’s argument The accused’s lawyer said the case was the result of the accused’s relationship with the victim’s elder sister. According to the lawyer, the case was filed to harass the accused over his relationship with the elder daughter. In jail for more than a year The Supreme Court bench said that the accused had been in custody for more than a year. The trial could take some more time to conclude. The bench said, “In these circumstances, we are of the view that grounds exist for granting bail to the accused.” The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the High Court’s order. The bench directed that the accused be produced before the Special Court with the relevant jurisdiction within a maximum of seven days. The accused should then be released in accordance with the conditions fixed and the bail conditions.