The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment, strongly criticized the Allahabad High Court for declining bail to an accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously and that unwarranted delays in granting bail burden the judiciary and undermine principles of justice.
The Court said: “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 case, SLP(Crl.) No. 1059/2025, was heard by a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan. The petitioner, Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi @ Mohd. Shad, had sought relief after spending over 11 months in custody for allegations of forcibly converting a mentally challenged minor to Islam.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a madrasa Maulvi, was accused 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, punishable under Section 5 of the Act. It was alleged that the petitioner forcibly converted a mentally challenged minor, who had been abandoned by his family, to Islam. The FIR was registered under Crime No. 74/2024 at the Naubasta Police Station, District Kanpur Nagar.
The petitioner contended that he had merely provided shelter to the minor on humanitarian grounds. However, the state argued that the case fell within the stricter provisions of the Act, as it involved a minor, making the offense punishable with imprisonment of up to ten years.
Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court raised serious concerns about the manner in which lower courts handle bail applications, particularly in cases that are not of grave or heinous nature. It underscored the following points:
1. Judicial Discretion Should Align With Established Principles
The court observed that the denial of bail in cases like the present creates an impression of arbitrary decision-making. It noted:
“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.”
2. Unwarranted Delays Overburden Higher Courts
The bench expressed frustration over the unwillingness of lower courts to exercise judicial courage:
“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.
In fact, this matter should not have reached up to the Supreme Court. The trial court itself should have been courageous enough to exercise its discretion and release the petitioner on bail.”
3. Discretion Must Not Be Arbitrary
The court reminded judges that discretion must adhere to legal principles and not be driven by subjective views or extraneous factors:
“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 CrPC or Section 483 of the BNSS.”
4. Seriousness of the Offense Must Be Evaluated Objectively
The court acknowledged the gravity of certain offenses but distinguished them from the present case, noting that the petitioner’s alleged actions were not comparable to heinous crimes like murder or dacoity.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Based on these observations, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had failed to exercise judicial discretion judiciously and granted bail to the petitioner. The court directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to terms and conditions set by the trial court.
The bench further emphasized the need for expeditious trial proceedings, clarifying that its observations should not influence the trial court’s assessment of guilt or innocence. It stated:
“The release of the petitioner should not now come in the way of the trial. Let the trial proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.”
