A High Court cannot refuse bail on the ground that it may affect the social order and the “morals” of the victim’s family, the Supreme Court has held, cautioning that a Judge’s personal views on morality have no place in deciding bail or trial.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore refusing regular bail to Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh, an accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act, holding that courts should refrain from imposing the personal views or value judgments of the presiding Judge on morality while deciding bail [Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another].
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar passed the order on September 23, 2026 in an appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9810 of 2026. The allegations against the appellant are yet to be tested at trial.
Background of the case
The appellant is an accused in a 2025 FIR under Sections 137(2), 65(2), 64(2)(m) and 87 of the BNS, Sections 3(A), 4(2) and 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(w)(II) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleges that he was a tenant in the victim’s neighbourhood and that the minor victim later told her mother that she had been sexually exploited by him for about a month. He has been in custody since September 10, 2025. The High Court rejected his regular bail application on March 20, 2026, and the Supreme Court issued notice on July 24, 2026. The identity of the victim and her family is withheld in this report.
Submissions
The appellant’s counsel argued that the case is a fallout of a personal dispute arising from his involvement with a member of the victim’s family, that it was registered only to harass him, that he has been falsely implicated to teach him a lesson, and that, having been in custody for over a year, he should be granted bail. The State of Madhya Pradesh opposed bail, pointing out that he was convicted on July 1, 2026 in a separate case, that the victim is a minor and the accusation serious, and that only five of the 15 proposed prosecution witnesses have been examined. The appellant said he has appealed against that conviction.
The Court’s reasoning
The Bench noted that the High Court had declined bail taking the view that bail may have ramifications on the social order and the “morals” of the victim’s family. It held:
“…refrain from imposing the personal views or value judgment of the Presiding Judge…”
This applies, it said, to the question of morality in bail matters and even in a criminal trial. Finding that the appellant had already undergone more than a year of incarceration and that the trial would take more time to conclude, the Bench held that a case for bail was made out.
ALSO READ: “No Law Stops an Adult Woman From Living With a Married Man”: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Directions
The Court set aside the High Court’s order of March 20, 2026 and directed that the appellant be produced before the jurisdictional Special Court within seven days, after which he is to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate. The bail is subject to his remaining in custody in the connected criminal appeal in which he has challenged his conviction by the trial court. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.
Case Title: Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9810 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 23, 2026
Appearance: Advocates Yamak Sharma, Brijesh Sharma, Utkarsh Joshi, Mahima Pandey and Surya Pratap Tyagi, with AOR Alabhya Dhamija, for the appellant; Advocates Aditya Vaibhav Singh and Raghvendra Shukla, with AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, for the State of Madhya Pradesh
If you know of a child in danger or in need of care and protection, call CHILDLINE at 1098.
