Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of India on January 27, 2025, granted bail to Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi, accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, criticized the courts below for their reluctance to grant bail, emphasizing the judicial responsibility of applying established principles in such cases.

The petitioner had been in custody for over 11 months, facing allegations of forcibly converting a mentally challenged minor to Islam while serving as a Maulvi at a madrasa in Kanpur Nagar. The accusations included offenses under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law, which carries stringent penalties, including up to 14 years of imprisonment for conversions involving minors or vulnerable persons.

During the hearing, Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the case involved a minor and warranted the harshest penalties under the law which could be 10 years in prison. She also submitted that the trial had already commenced, with seven witnesses examined so far. On the other hand, the defense, led by advocate K.L. Janjani, contested the charges, asserting that the minor, abandoned by his parents, was sheltered by the petitioner out of humanitarian concern.

The apex court, after examining the case details, found the High Court's denial of bail to be unwarranted. It observed that the allegations, while serious, did not justify prolonged pre-trial incarceration, especially when the trial was underway. Court highlighted that the nature of the offence, not being as grave as murder or dacoity, required a more balanced exercise of judicial discretion.

"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 bench stressed.

“The High Court should have exercised its discretion,” the bench remarked, adding, “Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious.” It also criticized the broader trend of excessive caution in granting bail by trial and High Courts.

"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 bench said. 

It added that "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."

Court slammed the courts below saying that "in fact, this matter should not have reached up to the Supreme Court," while adding that "the trial court itself should have been courageous enough to exercise its discretion and release the petitioner on bail".

"This is one of the reasons why the High Courts and now unfortunately the Supreme Court of the country is flooded with bail applications," it said.

Court emphasised that in one of the matters, it had taken a view that ordinarily once the trial commences, the court should be loath in releasing the accused on bail. But it all depends on the nature of the crime, it clarified.

Regarding the present matter, the bench said, "Had it been a case of murder or any other serious offence we would have declined".

Conclusively, finding the case to be fit to order release of the petitioner on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose, the bench allowed the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) moved by the accused Maulavi against the high court's order of May 15, 2024, and ordered him to be released on bail.

"The release of the petitioner should not now come in the way of the trial. Let the trial proceed expeditiously in accordance with law," the bench, however, added. It also stressed that 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 it.

Case Title: MAULVI SYED SHAD KAZMI VS STATE OF UP