In a landmark ruling on January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the Allahabad High Court for its reluctance to grant bail in a case involving alleged unlawful religious conversion. The case, Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi @ Mohd. Shad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1059/2025, Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 114), has drawn significant attention due to its implications on the judicial approach toward bail applications, particularly in cases concerning religious conversion laws. The Supreme Court’s observations highlight the necessity of upholding fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence and the discretionary power of courts to grant bail in non-heinous offenses.

Background of the Case

The case involved Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi, who was accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The prosecution alleged that Kazmi had forcefully converted a mentally challenged minor to Islam while keeping him at a madrasa. The allegations led to charges under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 3 of the 2021 Act.

The defense contended that the minor had been abandoned by his parents and was merely provided shelter out of humanitarian concern, with no coercion or religious conversion involved. Despite these arguments, both the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court denied bail to Kazmi, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s decision to deny bail, emphasizing that:

1. Bail Principles Must Be Upheld: The Court reiterated that bail is the norm, and jail is the exception, especially in cases where the alleged offense does not involve grave charges like murder, rape, or dacoity. The bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, observed that denying bail in such cases creates an undue burden on the judicial system by forcing matters to escalate to the Supreme Court.
2. Discretion Must Be Exercised Judicially: The Court criticized the Trial Court and High Court for failing to exercise their discretionary power judiciously. It noted that while lower courts are often hesitant to grant bail, the High Court was expected to display more judicial courage and apply well-settled legal principles.
3. Concern Over Judicial Approach to Bail: The Supreme Court pointed out that many lower courts tend to err on the side of caution in bail matters, often treating bail applications as if they were decisions on the final guilt of the accused. This, the Court argued, goes against the fundamental principles of criminal law, where an accused remains innocent until proven guilty.
4. Judicial Trainings and Conferences Need Effective Implementation: The bench observed that despite regular judicial conferences, workshops, and training programs aimed at educating trial judges on bail jurisprudence, there remains a persistent reluctance to grant bail. The Court expressed frustration over this trend, stating that such judicial hesitance contributes to the backlog of bail applications in higher courts.

Implications of the Ruling

1. Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence

The ruling serves as a significant reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s stance that bail should be granted in cases where prolonged detention is unnecessary. This aligns with previous judgments, including the Court’s observations in Manish Sisodia’s case, where it criticized courts for withholding bail as a form of punishment.

2. Potential Impact on Anti-Conversion Law Cases

The case also raises important questions about the implementation of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The law has been criticized for its broad and vague provisions, leading to allegations of misuse and wrongful arrests. The Supreme Court’s intervention may set a precedent for granting bail more liberally in similar cases, ensuring that the law is not misused to target individuals without substantial evidence.

3. Burden on the Higher Judiciary

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the increasing number of bail applications reaching the apex court due to reluctance at lower levels to grant bail. The ruling sends a clear message to High Courts and trial courts that they must exercise their discretion responsibly, thereby reducing unnecessary appeals and easing judicial workload.

4. Judicial Accountability and Fairness

By explicitly stating that the refusal to grant bail in the present case gave an impression of “altogether different considerations weighing with the presiding officer,” the Supreme Court has emphasized the need for judicial accountability. The judgment underscores that courts must ensure that their decisions are based on legal principles rather than external influences or apprehensions.

Key Takeaways

• Bail remains a fundamental right and should not be denied unless necessary.
• Judges must exercise discretion judiciously, particularly in non-heinous offenses.
• Judicial reluctance to grant bail contributes to backlog and delays in the justice system.
• This ruling may influence future cases involving anti-conversion laws and other controversial statutes.
• Lower courts must align with Supreme Court precedents to ensure fair and efficient justice delivery.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh serves as a critical reminder that bail jurisprudence must be upheld in its true spirit. The judgment highlights the importance of judicial independence, fairness, and adherence to legal principles. By overturning the Allahabad High Court’s decision and granting bail, the apex court has reinforced the doctrine that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without substantial justification.

- Advertisement -

This case sets an important precedent for future bail applications and underscores the necessity of a more balanced approach in cases involving religious conversion laws. Moving forward, trial courts and High Courts must take cognizance of this ruling to prevent unnecessary incarceration and ensure that justice is served efficiently and fairly.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-3Yp