The Supreme Court has held that courts should refrain from imposing the personal views or value judgments of a judge on morality while deciding bail applications or conducting criminal trials.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation while granting bail to Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh, who is facing prosecution under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The judgment was delivered on September 23, 2026, in Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9810/2026.
The appellant had challenged the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated March 20, 2026, by which his regular bail application was rejected.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had declined bail, observing that granting bail could have ramifications on social order and the “morals” of the victim's family.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach and observed:
“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.”
According to the case record, the appellant had been in custody since September 10, 2025.
He is accused in Crime No. 548/2025 registered at Station Road Police Station, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, under various provisions of the BNS, POCSO Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant was a tenant residing in the neighbourhood of the victim. It was further alleged that he had attempted to abduct the victim's elder sister, resulting in registration of an earlier case, Crime No. 259/2025.
Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the minor victim informed her mother that the appellant had sexually exploited her for about a month, leading to registration of the present case.
The State opposed the bail plea, pointing out that the appellant had been convicted on July 1, 2026, in the case arising from Crime No. 259/2025.
The State also submitted that the present case involved a minor prosecutrix and that the allegations were serious.
With regard to the trial, the prosecution stated that it proposed to examine 15 witnesses, of whom five had already been examined.
The appellant, however, submitted that he had already preferred an appeal against his conviction in the earlier case and argued that the present prosecution was a consequence of his relationship with the victim's elder sister.
After examining the record, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant had already undergone more than one year of incarceration and that the trial would take some more time to conclude.
In these circumstances, the Court held that a case for bail had been made out.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated March 20, 2026.
The Court directed that the appellant be produced before the concerned jurisdictional Special Court within seven days, whereafter he would be released on bail on appropriate terms and conditions.
The Court clarified that the bail order would remain subject to the appellant being in custody in the connected criminal appeal in which he has challenged his conviction in the earlier case.
The criminal appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case: Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
SLP (Crl.): No. 9810/2026
Date of Judgment: September 23, 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s): 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 Respondent(s): Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Shukla, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy