Supreme Court: judges must not impose personal morality views in bail hearings

The core issue was whether the High Court erred in denying bail based on personal views regarding morality and social order.

Who it concerns: Petitioner: Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh; Respondents: The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.; Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.

What the court decided

• The impugned order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is set aside.
• The appellant is directed to be produced before the concerned jurisdictional Special Court within a maximum period of 07 days from the date of the order.
• The appellant is to be released on bail on terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Special Court.
• The bail order is subject to the appellant remaining in custody in the connected criminal appeal where he has assailed his conviction by the Trial Court.
• The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

Also in the document

• The Court stated that Courts should refrain from imposing the personal views or value judgment of the Presiding Judge on morality while adjudicating bail or criminal trials.
• The Court noted the appellant had already undergone more than one year of incarceration (since 10.09.2025).
• The Court observed that the High Court had declined bail taking the view that it might have ramifications on the social order and the 'morals' of the victim’s family.