|
The Supreme Court on Monday while granting bail to a Maulvi accused of religious conversion, observed that it was expected of the High Court to muster courage and exercise its discretion judiciously.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan explained that discretion in such cases must be used judiciously by the courts keeping in mind the well settled principles for granting bail. "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", the Court said in its order. Further, the Court lamented the lack of understanding on the part of trial court judges in exercising their discretion while considering bail applications. "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", the top-court added. The Court was dealing with a bail plea filed by a Maulvi man (scholar of Islam), Syed Shad Kazmi who had been booked for having forcibly kept and religiously converted a mentally challenged minor. Kazmi had been denied bail both by the trial court and the Allahabad High Court before he moved the Supreme Court seeking bail. Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prashad who appeared for state of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the case against Kazmi fell under relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, which entails a maximum punishment of imprisonment up to ten years. Advocate K.L. Janjani who represented Kazmi, countered by pointing out that there is no case against his client who had already been in judicial custody for more than 11 months. He submitted that the child being mentally challenged was abandoned by the parents and Kazmi brought him to his place to provide him shelter on humanitarian grounds. The Court, after considering the submissions, observed that the High Court should have mustered the courage in having to grant relief to the present bail applicant. "There was no good reason for the High Court to decline bail. The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape, etc. 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 top court said. The top court added that when High Courts decline bail in such cases, it gives an impression that different considerations were weighed in by the judge in ignorance of the well settled principles of granting bail. Additionally, the top court said that such cases should not even have to come up before the Supreme Court if the trial court would act courageously and release such accused persons on bail. It noted that this is one of the reasons why the higher courts including the Supreme Court are flooded with bail applications. After having considered the facts and submissions in the case, the Court proceeded to grant bail to Kazmi. (ANI)
|
