RIGHT TO BAIL IN INDIA


RIGHT TO BAIL IN INDIA:
Prasoon Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Supreme Court
Bail, in law, means procurement of release from prison of a person awaiting trial or an appeal, by the deposit of security to ensure his submission at the required time to legal authority.
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or Cr.P.C. does not define bail, however it talks in details about the bail process and how it is obtained. Section 2(a) Cr.P.C.  says that bailable offense means an offense which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being enforce, and non-bailable offense means any other offense.
Thus, section 2(a) Cr.P.C. talks about schedule which refers to all the offenses under the Indian Penal Code and puts them into bailable and on bailable categories which have been determined according to the nature of the crime. For instance, all serious offences like offenses punishable with imprisonment for three years or more have seen considered as non bailable offenses, all other offenses have been kept bailable offenses.
Later part of the Cr.P.C. under sections 436 to 450 talks about the process of bail,
A bail is of two types-
1. Regular bail- applied under Sections- 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Regular bail is granted to a person who is already in the police custody of an offence or when there are allegations on him of committing the same.

2. Anticipatory bail- applied under Section- 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Anticipatory bail is applied in a condition where there is fear of arrest of the person by the police.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and bail:-
Article 9- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10- Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11(1)- Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
There are thus several reasons which have been enumerated as to why bail ought to be allowed to prevent pre-trial detention
Justice Krishna Iyer in  State of Rajasthan v Balchand, raised his voice against the unfair bail system. He said that the time has come to rethink the traditional  system of pecuniary bail. It may well be that in most cases an undertaking would serve the purpose.
In Moti Ram and Ors. v State of M.P, Justice Krishna Iyer, stated that the judges should be more inclined towards bail and not jail.
Further in Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Sec, State of Bihar, the Court laid down the ratio that when the man is in jail for a period longer than the sentence, he is liable for then he should be released.
Thus bail is considered as matter of right to safeguard once liberty.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

T.C.Mathai & Anr. Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (1999) 3SCC 614. Date of Judgement: 31.03.1999.

                        FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant claims to be the power-of-attorney holder of a couple (husband and wife) living in Kuwait.   He sought permission of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum to appear and plead on behalf of the said couple who are arrayed as respondents in a criminal revision petition filed before the said Sessions.    Session Court:- Permission was declined, as the request for such permission did not emanate from the respondent-couple themselves. There upon appellant moved the High Court of   Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a direction to the Sessions Judge concerned to grant the permission sought for.   Single Judge of the High Court:- dismissed the Original Petition against which appellant filed a writ appeal.   Division Bench of the High Co...
Read more

Mahabir Prasad Singh vs. M/s Jacks Aviation Private Ltd; (1999) 1 SCC 37.

  (Case regarding boycotting a particular court) Date of Judgement: 13.11.1998.    Bench:   S.Saghir Ahmad,   K.T.Thomas.     Judgement: Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology, whether it is by litigants or by counsel. Judicial process must run its even course unbridled by any boycott call of the Bar, or tactics of filibuster adopted by any member thereof. High Courts are duty bound to insulate judicial   functionaries within their territory from being demoralised due to such onslaughts by giving full protection to them to discharge their duties without fear. But unfortunately this case reflects apathy on the part of the High Court in affording such protection to a judicial functionary who resisted, through legal means, a pressure strategy slammed on him in open court.    It all happened in the...
Read more

L.C.Goyal vs. Nawal Kishore (1997) 11 SCC 258.

                                Date of Judgement: 09.01.1997.                 (Issue of Bogus Cash Receipt by A.O.R. to the Client (Court-fee)                                                        ORDER   This appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is directed against the Order of Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated 24.6.1983 whereby  the appellant has been suspended from practice for a period of six months.   1.   FACT OF THE CASE:-          The  appellant  was practicing as  an   Advocate-an-Record in this Court.  He  was engaged by one Nawal Kishore (the complainant )  to fil...
Read more