High Courts And Trial Courts Have Forgotten That Bail Is Not To Be Withheld As A Punishment: SC
“High Courts and Trial Courts Have Forgotten That Bail Is Not To Be Withheld As A Punishment,” along with relevant case law.
Concept of Bail: Bail Is a Right, Not a Punishment
Bail is a legal mechanism that allows an accused person to be released from custody, typically on the condition that they appear in court for their trial. The underlying principle of bail is to balance the presumption of innocence with the need to ensure the accused’s presence during trial.
The fundamental idea is that bail should not be used as a tool of punishment or pretrial detention.
The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and being in custody before trial should not be a punitive measure.
Bail is essentially an assurance—financial, personal, or otherwise—that the accused will not abscond or tamper with evidence.
What the Supreme Court Has Observed
The Supreme Court, in several judgments, has criticized lower courts for treating bail as a form of punishment or withholding it arbitrarily without valid reasons. The courts are reminded that:
Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.
Courts should not deny bail merely because the accused is alleged to have committed a serious crime.
Bail denial must be based on well-founded grounds, such as:
Likelihood of the accused fleeing,
Tampering with evidence,
Threat to witnesses, or
Danger to society.
Courts must ensure that bail conditions are reasonable and not oppressive.
Important Case Laws on This Principle
Here are some landmark Supreme Court cases which articulate the principle that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment:
1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980)
The Court held that bail is a right of the accused and the rule rather than an exception.
It emphasized that courts should not withhold bail as a form of punishment.
The Court clarified that the purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, not to punish or impose preventive detention.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977)
The Court said that the grant or refusal of bail depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
It highlighted that courts should not deny bail simply because the accused is charged with a serious offense.
The refusal of bail must be based on tangible reasons such as the risk of absconding or interference with the investigation.
3. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012)
The Court ruled that bail should not be withheld as a punitive measure.
It noted that the investigation or trial process itself should not become a form of punishment.
Bail must be granted unless the prosecution can show a strong case that the accused will misuse the liberty granted by bail.
4. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
The Court recognized that delay in granting bail leads to prolonged and unjustified detention, which amounts to punishment before trial.
This judgment underscored the importance of speedy bail to prevent misuse of custody as a tool for punishment.
Why This Principle Matters
Preventing misuse of police power and judicial discretion: Bail should not be used to keep an accused in custody indefinitely on flimsy grounds.
Safeguarding the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Protecting the presumption of innocence: Pre-trial detention should not imply guilt.
Ensuring fairness and justice: The criminal justice system must not become an instrument for harassment or coercion through prolonged custody.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that:
Bail is a constitutional right and must be granted unless strong and valid reasons exist to deny it.
Courts must resist the temptation to withhold bail as a punitive measure.
Pre-trial detention is an exception, and bail is the norm.
This approach preserves the delicate balance between individual liberty and the needs of law enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments