The Supreme Court has ruled that judicial orders must not be guided by individual notions of morality, observing that judges must avoid incorporating personal value judgments when deciding bail pleas or conducting criminal trials. Setting aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had denied bail over concerns regarding social order and the “morals” of the complainant’s family, a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar granted regular bail to an accused who had spent over a year in incarceration.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Kanha alias Kanhaiya Singh, was arrested on September 10, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 548/2025 registered at Police Station Station Road, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh. The case was registered under Sections 137(2), 65(2), 64(2)(m), and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); Sections 3(A), 4(2), and 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act); and Sections 3(1)(w)(II) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
According to the prosecution, the appellant resided as a tenant in the neighbourhood of the victim. Despite being married, he allegedly attempted to abduct the victim’s elder sister, resulting in the registration of an earlier case, Crime No. 259/2025. Following that incident, the minor victim informed her mother that the appellant had sexually exploited her for approximately a month, which led to the registration of the present case.
The appellant approached the Supreme Court after the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore rejected his regular bail application on March 20, 2026.
Arguments Before the Court
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the criminal case was merely a fallout of his relationship with the victim’s elder sister and was filed solely to harass him and teach him a lesson. Counsel emphasized that the appellant had already been in custody for more than a year. While acknowledging that the appellant was convicted on July 1, 2026, in the earlier abduction case (Crime No. 259/2025), counsel submitted that an appeal against that conviction had already been preferred and the appellant was confident of succeeding.
Opposing the plea, learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh highlighted that the appellant stood convicted in Crime No. 259/2025 and pointed out the grave nature of the allegations involving a minor girl. The State further submitted that the trial was actively underway, with five out of 15 proposed prosecution witnesses already examined, arguing that enlarging the appellant on bail at this stage would not be appropriate.
The Court’s Analysis
Upon examining the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had declined bail on the premise that releasing the appellant might impact the social order and the “morals” of the victim’s family.
Disapproving of this reasoning, the Supreme Court observed:
“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.”
Examining the factual circumstances of the case, the bench noted that the appellant had already undergone more than one year of incarceration and that the trial would take further time to conclude, thereby making out a fit case for bail.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order dated March 20, 2026. The Court directed that the appellant be produced before the jurisdictional Special Court within seven days to be released on bail on appropriate terms and conditions.
The apex court clarified that the bail order would remain subject to the appellant being in custody in connection with the appeal challenging his conviction in the previous case.
Case Details:
Case Title: Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9810/2026)
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: September 23, 2026
