NEW DELHI, SEP 30 (PTI): Courts should refrain from imposing their personal views or value judgement on morality while deciding bail pleas and matters relating to criminal trials, the Supreme Court has said.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Chandurkar made the remark while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order which had declined to grant bail to an accused in a sexual assault case on the ground that it may have ramifications on the social order and the “morals” of the victim’s family.
“We are of the view that courts should refrain from imposing the personal views or value judgement of the Presiding Judge on morality or otherwise while adjudicating a matter relating to bail, or even a criminal trial of an accused,” the bench said in its September 23 order.
It added that from a reading of the impugned order dated March 20, the court finds that the high court declined to grant bail to the appellant, taking the view that granting of bail may have ramifications on the social order and the “morals” of the victim’s family.
It noted that the appellant is an accused in the FIR registered at Ratlam district of the state under various provisions of BNS, sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The accusation against the appellant was that he was a tenant residing in the neighbourhood of the victim and despite being a married person, he attempted to abduct the elder sister of the victim leading to registration of the case.
Thereafter, the victim informed her mother that the appellant had sexually exploited her for about a month, leading to registration of the present case.
The counsel for the accused contended that the present case is a fallout of his relationship with the elder sister of the so-called victim and it is only to harass his client for his involvement with the elder daughter that the present case has been registered.
The bench noted that the accused has been in custody for more than one year now.
“Insofar as the present case is concerned, we find that appellant has already undergone more than one year of incarceration. It would take some more time for the trial to conclude.
“In such circumstances, we are of the view that a case for bail is made out,” it said, while setting aside the high court’s order.
It directed that the accused shall be produced before the concerned jurisdictional special court within a maximum period of seven days, whereafter he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate.
