Menu

Juneja Legal

The Law Firm

header photo

Bail Jurisprudence in India

Bail is a fundamental aspect of any criminal justice system that guarantees the accused the right to a fair trial. The practice of granting bail grew out of the need to safeguard the fundamental right to liberty. No person shall be deprived of their personal liberty unless prescribed so by a reasonable, fair and just procedure. 

However, bail jurisprudence in India is in dire need of reform, as is evident from the recent judgments of the Supreme Court and the observations made by its judges.  The main challenges faced by bail jurisprudence in India are:

- The lack of uniformity and consistency in granting or refusing bail
- The arbitrary and excessive imposition of bail conditions and amounts
- The misuse and abuse of anticipatory bail and cancellation of bail
- The absence of a comprehensive bail legislation

 Lack of uniformity and consistency

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) categorises offences into bailable and non-bailable offences. Bailable offences are those for which the accused can claim release on bail as a matter of right. Non-bailable offences are those for which the accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right but can approach the court for discretion. 

However, the CrPC does not provide any clear guidelines or criteria for exercising this discretion. The courts have to balance the individual rights of the accused and the collective interests of society, which are often subjective and vague.  As a result, different courts may adopt different approaches and considerations while granting or refusing bail, leading to inconsistency and unpredictability.

For example, some courts may give more weight to the gravity of the offence or the possibility of tampering with evidence or witnesses. In comparison, others may give more weight to the personal circumstances of the accused or the duration of detention. Some courts may grant bail liberally, while others may deny it routinely. Some courts may grant bail on humanitarian grounds, while others may refuse it on public interest grounds.

This lack of uniformity and consistency creates confusion and uncertainty among the accused, the lawyers and the public. It also undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the judicial system.

Arbitrary and excessive imposition of bail conditions and amounts

Another challenge faced by bail jurisprudence in India is the arbitrary and excessive imposition of bail conditions and amounts by some courts. Bail conditions are meant to ensure that the accused does not abscond, interfere with the investigation or trial, or commit any further offence while on bail. Bail amounts are meant to secure the presence of the accused before the court. 

However, some courts impose bail conditions and amounts that are unreasonable, irrelevant or disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the case. For example, some courts may impose conditions that restrict the movement, speech or association of the accused beyond what is necessary or permissible under law. Some courts may impose amounts that are beyond the financial capacity ofthe accused or unrelated to their risk of flight or recidivism.

Such arbitrary and excessive imposition of bail conditions and amounts violates the principle of proportionality and infringes upon the fundamental rights of the accused. It also defeats the purpose of bail by making it inaccessible or unaffordable for many accused.

Misuse and abuse of anticipatory bail and cancellation of bail

A third challenge faced by bail jurisprudence in India is the misuse and abuse of anticipatory bail and cancellation of bail by some parties. Anticipatory bail is a special type of bail that can be granted by a court before arrest when there is a reasonable apprehension that a person may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. Cancellation of bail is a power vested in a court to revoke or recall a bail order when there are sufficient grounds to do so. 

However, some parties misuse or abuse these powers for ulterior motives or malicious purposes. For example, some accused may seek anticipatory bail to avoid arrest or investigation altogether or to delay or derail the judicial process. Some complainants may seek cancellation of bail to harass or intimidate the accused, or to influence or manipulate the outcome of the case.

Such misuse or abuse of anticipatory bail and cancellation of bail undermines the rule of law and erodes public confidence in the judicial system.

Absence of a comprehensive bail legislation

A fourth challenge faced by bail jurisprudence in India is the absence of comprehensive bail legislation that can address these issues and provide a clear and coherent framework for granting or refusing bail. The CrPC provides only some general guidelines and principles for bail but does not cover all aspects of the bail process. For example, the CrPC does not define what constitutes a bailable or non-bailable offence, nor does it specify the criteria for granting anticipatory bail or interim bail. Moreover, the CrPC does not lay down any uniform standards for imposing conditions on bail, such as sureties, bonds, reporting requirements, etc. These matters are left to the discretion of the courts or the police, which can lead to arbitrariness and inconsistency in bail decisions.

The lack of comprehensive bail legislation also creates confusion and uncertainty among the accused, the lawyers, and the public. The accused may not know their rights and obligations regarding bail and may face difficulties in securing bail due to procedural hurdles or financial constraints. The lawyers may not have adequate knowledge or resources to effectively represent their clients in bail matters. The public may not have a clear understanding of the rationale and purpose of bail and may perceive it as a privilege or a loophole for the accused to escape justice.

Therefore, there is an urgent need for comprehensive bail legislation that can codify and consolidate the existing laws and practices on bail, and provide a uniform and transparent framework for granting or refusing bail. Such legislation should also reflect the constitutional values of liberty, dignity, and presumption of innocence, and balance them with the interests of justice, public safety, and victim rights. Comprehensive bail legislation can also help in reducing overcrowding in prisons, ensuring speedy trials, and promoting the fair and humane treatment of the accused.

Go Back

Comment

Know your Rights - Juneja Leal is here to help