Trial Courts Seldom Muster Courage To Grant Bail, But High Courts Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously: SC Criticizes Allahabad HC For Denying Bail In Religious Conversion Case

The Supreme Court on Monday (January 27) criticized the Allahabad High Court for failing to exercise its discretionary power to grant bail in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The Court remarked that the refusal to grant bail in such cases gives the impression that "altogether different considerations weighed with the presiding officer, ignoring the well-settled principles of granting bail."

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan made these observations while hearing the bail plea of a Maulvi accused of performing a forceful religious conversion of a mentally challenged minor. The prosecution alleged that the minor was forcibly kept at a Madarasa and converted to Islam. Charges were filed under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the 2021 Act.

The Appellant contended that he had provided shelter to the abandoned minor purely out of humanitarian concern without any coercion or religious conversion. He also argued that he had been in custody for 11 months, the trial was still incomplete, and the prosecution had already examined its witnesses.

The Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court denied bail, prompting the Appellant to move to the Supreme Court.

AOR K. L. Janjani appeared for the Petitioner, and AAG Garima Prashad appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Court's Observation

While overturning the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court stated, "We can understand that the trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail. However, it was expected of the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously."

The Court emphasized that denying bail in less serious offences, such as the present case, leads to an unnecessary backlog of bail applications in higher courts. It further noted, "At times, when the High Court declines bail in matters like these, it gives the impression that altogether different considerations weighed with the presiding officer, ignoring the well-settled principles of grant of bail."

The Court also criticized the prosecution for repeatedly objecting to bail in cases where it could have been granted on appropriate terms and conditions.

"We fail to understand what harm would have befallen on the prosecution if the petitioner had been released on bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions. This is one of the reasons why High Courts, and now the Supreme Court, are flooded with bail applications," the Bench observed.

The Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to release the petitioner on bail, subject to terms and conditions it deems fit. It noted that the ongoing trial and the examination of prosecution witnesses did not justify prolonged detention in this case. "The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose. The release of the petitioner should not now come in the way of the trial. Let the trial proceed expeditiously in accordance with law," it ordered.

The Bench clarified, "The guilt or the innocence of the accused shall be determined on the strength of the substantive evidence that may come on record and without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court."

Cause Title: Maulvi Syed Shah Kazmi@ Mohd. Shad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1059/2025]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates K. L. Janjani (AOR), Anil Kumar Pandey, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Kailash J. Kashyap

Respondent: AAG Garima Prashad, Advocates Ankit Goel (AOR), Harshit Singhal

Click here to read/download the Order