In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi, who had been accused of unlawfully converting a mentally-challenged minor in Uttar Pradesh. The decision came as a critique of the Allahabad High Court’s earlier refusal to grant bail, with the apex court emphasizing the need for judicial discretion in such matters.
The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, addressed the high court’s denial of bail, noting that while granting bail remains a discretionary judicial act, it must be exercised with adherence to established legal principles. “Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious,” the bench stated.
The case against Kazmi, which involves charges under the controversial Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, saw him detained for over 11 months without bail. His arrest followed an FIR lodged in the Kanpur Nagar district, marking him as a key figure in this high-profile case.
The Supreme Court’s observation highlighted a broader concern regarding the reluctance of lower courts to grant 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 justices remarked.
Further criticizing the procedural hesitations, the bench added that such matters should not escalate to the apex court when lower courts are fully capable of making appropriate decisions on bail. “The trial court itself should have been courageous enough to exercise its discretion and release the petitioner on bail,” they asserted.
With the trial ongoing and seven witnesses already examined, the Supreme Court directed that Kazmi be released on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court deems appropriate. They underscored that the continuation of the trial should not be hindered by the release, and that the trial should proceed expeditiously in accordance with the law.
The ruling also clarified that the final determination of Kazmi’s guilt or innocence would depend solely on the substantive evidence presented during the trial, and should not be influenced by the Supreme Court’s observations regarding the bail process.
