Such observations are not warranted in the case in hand, it quoted. The order has come while Supreme Court granted bail to an accused under Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.The case pertained to a man who was charged under the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law, which prohibits conversion of religion with force, fraud or inducement. The accused moved for bail in the Allahabad High Court, upon which sweeping remarks were made about the alleged growing trend of forced religious conversions in the state. The High Court, while refusing to release the accused on bail, also voiced its concern on religious conversion in general, terming it as a very serious matter that affects public order and social harmony. He moved to the Supreme Court. He appealed the denial of bail and the observations of the High Court regarding religious conversion. The appeal of his lawyers argued in the Supreme Court that the observations of the High Court on the question of religious conversion were wholly irrelevant to the facts of the case and, hence, irrelevant to the matter before them, which was a cogent piece of reasoning. Delivering its judgment, the SC underlined that the Allahabad High Court had made remarks on extraneous considerations totally undeserving of the bail hearing. Clarifying matters, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai pointed out: "Courts are absolutely competent to make observations about the causes of public concern. However, such an observation needs to have some specific relevance in relation to the subject matter of the case under consideration.". The Court found that remarks on religious conversions were not necessary for deciding the bail application and, hence, should not have been made. The Supreme Court also correctly made the pertinent point that judicial restraint is essential, and this becomes paramount when courts are dealing with sensitive issues, like religion. The Court was clear that any and all points of discussion on religious conversion should be addressed with cautious considerations to avoid related implications on societal harmony and individual rights. In the instant case, the Court held that the remarks by Allahabad High Court had a tendency to prejudice the accused person and created unfounded alarm in regard to the larger issue of religious conversion, which was not relevant to the case at all. The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, while granting the bail, held that the availability of cases on facts and evidence should be assessed rather than making a general comment on trends prevailing in society. The Court further reiterated that personal liberty should be given utmost importance so that bail cannot be denied based upon grounds not directly relevant to the charges.