Back
Supreme Court Grants to Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh, Cautions Judges on Personal Morality
The on Wednesday set aside a order that had denied to an accused in a POCSO case, holding that judges must refrain from imposing personal views on morality while adjudicating pleas or criminal trials. A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar granted to Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh, who had been in custody since .
Case Background: From Tenant Dispute to Criminal Charges
The appellant, Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh, was a tenant living near the victim’s family. According to the prosecution, despite being married, he attempted to abduct the victim’s elder sister, leading to the registration of Crime No.259/2025. Following this, the victim’s mother alleged that Singh had sexually exploited her minor daughter for about a month, resulting in the present case under Crime No.548/2025. The charges included multiple provisions of the , the , and the . The High Court had rejected Singh’s application, citing that granting could have ramifications on social order and the “morals” of the victim’s family.
Arguments: Harassment Allegation vs. Serious Accusations
Singh’s counsel argued that the case was a fallout of his relationship with the victim’s elder sister and that the charges were fabricated to harass him. He pointed out that Singh had already been in custody for over a year and that the trial was likely to take time. The State of Madhya Pradesh countered that Singh had been convicted in the connected case (Crime No.259/2025) and that the present accusations were serious, involving a minor. The prosecution had examined 5 of its 15 witnesses, and releasing Singh on might be inappropriate.
Legal Analysis: No Room for Personal Moral Judgments
The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s reliance on “morality” as a ground for denying . The bench observed that courts should not allow personal views or value judgments of the presiding judge to influence decisions or criminal trials. “We are of the view that Courts should refrain from imposing the or otherwise while adjudicating a matter relating to , or even a of an accused,” the Court stated.
Additionally, the Court noted that Singh had already undergone more than one year of and that the trial would take more time to conclude. Given these circumstances, the bench found that a case for was made out, emphasizing that the length of custody and were relevant considerations.
Key Observations
- “We are of the view that Courts should refrain from imposing the or otherwise while adjudicating a matter relating to , or even a of an accused.”
- “We find that appellant has already undergone more than one year of . It would take some more time for the trial to conclude. In such circumstances, we are of the view that a case for is made out.”
Court’s Decision: Granted, High Court Order Set Aside
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the dated . The Court directed that Singh be produced before the jurisdictional within seven days and then released on on terms deemed appropriate by that court. However, the order is subject to Singh being in custody in the connected criminal appeal where he has challenged his . The judgment reinforces the principle that decisions must be based on legal considerations, not the personal moral views of the judge.
