The Supreme Court, while granting bail to a maulvi accused of converting a mentally challenged boy to Islam, observed that the offence of illegal religious conversion is not as grave as crimes like murder, dacoity, or rape.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan criticized trial courts for frequently denying bail despite attending legal conferences aimed at guiding them on exercising judicial discretion.
“Every year, numerous conferences, seminars, and workshops are conducted to help trial judges understand how to exercise discretion in bail matters, yet they continue to deny bail as if they are unaware of the scope of Section 439 of the CrPC or Section 483 of the BNSS,” the Court remarked.
The Bench also rebuked the Allahabad High Court for refusing bail, stating that there was no justifiable reason for the denial.
“We understand that trial courts often hesitate to grant bail, regardless of the offence. However, it was expected that the High Court would have exercised its discretion judiciously. The alleged offence is not of the same gravity as murder, dacoity, or rape,” the Court stated.
The petitioner, a maulvi from Uttar Pradesh, is facing trial under Sections 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the increasing reluctance of trial courts to grant bail, emphasizing that judicial discretion should not be arbitrary.
“Discretion does not mean that a judge can, based on personal whims, deny bail simply because conversion is perceived as a serious issue,” the Court asserted.
The Bench also noted that the case should not have reached the Supreme Court in the first place.
“The trial court should have had the courage to grant bail at the outset. We fail to see what harm would have been caused to the prosecution if the petitioner had been released on bail with appropriate conditions,” the Court observed.
The ruling concluded with a broader reflection on the overwhelming number of bail applications flooding High Courts and, increasingly, the Supreme Court due to the failure of lower courts to exercise judicial discretion appropriately.