Seriousness of charge is not the only factor in grant of bail: Bench
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the release on bail of five corporate executives in the 2G spectrum case, holding that there was no reason to detain them in custody that too after the completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet.
A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu said: “This court has time and again stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him/her and/or if the court is satisfied there is need to release such accused on bail.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Dattu said: “The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand trial when called upon by the court. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.”
It would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty “that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which he has not been convicted, or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.”
The Bench said: “Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct, whether the accused has been convicted for it or not, or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”
In this case, the appellants were denied bail as the accusation was “seriousness of the charge.” “The offences alleged are economic offences, which have resulted in loss to the state exchequer. In our view, seriousness of the charge is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or factor: the other factor that also required to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trail and conviction.”
Constitutional rights
The Bench said: “If the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but [would be doing] rather “recalibration of the scales of justice.”
Pointing out that grant of bail was discretionary and this should be exercised with great care and caution, the Bench said the reasoning adopted by both the special CBI Judge and the Delhi High Court in rejecting bail to the appellants “is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of the bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.”
For grant of bail two paramount considerations should be kept in mind — a likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution witnesses. “Both of them relate to ensuring fair trial of the case. Though this aspect is dealt with by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing.”
The Bench said that in the Bihar fodder scam case also, the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused, taking into consideration the seriousness of the charge and the maximum sentence that could be imposed for the offence and also the fact that the accused had been in jail for more than six months.
Keywords: 2G spectrum scam case, corporate exective bail pleas, UPA-II, political scandals, A. Raja, Kanimozhi bail plea
Who is responsible if the jailed people found innocent after the trial? Our system should be corrected. Instead of keeping the accused in Jail, they should be kept in house arrest or any such detention the accused can afford, if the investigating authority feel they tamper with the evidence or witnesses. But this Jailing is almost equal as a punishment and this should not be logic for a modern civilized society.
Who will be held responsible if any of the accused out on bail is "suicided",like Sadiq Paasha was,in Chennai.No news on that front at all...After all,the stakes are pretty high,with not just reputations at stake,but the looming threat of a term in jail.
strange. why in a democracy the mass public sentiments are being rejected in the name of changeable laws that are made by those whom this very public elects?
No doubt jail is not bail, but courts taking undue and long time to decide the case, with all appeals and procedural wrangles, frustrates the very purpose of finding out whether one is guilty or not. The category of corporate officials should not be equated with public officials and politicians as well, as the political scenario in India shows, the politicians and officials roaming freely with impunity, despite accusation of grave offenses after being released on bail, because the law takes its own time to decide the issue of accusation. There cannot be smoke without fire. Time limit should be set to dispose of such cases by subordinate courts, as well and ensure that the dead lines for disposal are met seriously, than to be forgotten or overlooked in course of time.
For how long my lord!! I mean how long will you take to pronounce the judgement? May be after 20 years? By then these thugs and their generations would have enjoyed the benefits of the loot and would have killed all those witnesses. The public, the suffers would have lived the punishment of this day to day looting and patiently waiting for the judgement to say either acquirtted or give him/her a 5 year punishment when they are 85+.
In practice, only the rich and powerful, will benefit by this decision of the SC. The poor wretched common man will languish in prison indefinitely, as he can ill afford the services of these high priced lawyers. In the end, our system will protect the criminals (if they are rich and powerful), and punish the poor. That is the end result.Now the SC has declared that the public sentiment is irrelevant.
No one should be punished unless found guilty.Resonable oppurtunity should be give to defend his case effectively.Fair and free trial should be reasonable or atleast appear to be reasonable.If bail is rejected in each and every case then a special jail is necessary to accomodate all.Priciples of natural justice should be applied in all cases.Bail should be denied if there is reasonable doubt exists that if the suspects person is likely to tamper with witnesses and documents to be produced as posecution exhibits.Trial on a day to day basis should be appreciated.
The 2G spectrum accused have got some relief. Thanks to the Supreme Court. Just makes me wonder., not every accused especially the common man has the accessibility to approach Supreme Court or even high court for various reasons. Still we have at least thousands in Tamilnadu itself who have spend decades in Jail for committing petty crimes awaiting judgement. The guidance of the Supreme court has to be strictly followed by the lower courts too., to maintain the saying 'All are equal before the law'.
A fine piece of Indian jurisprudence in action.It will serve as a benchmark for many such cases in our country.HATS OFF TO OUR APEX COURT.
Justice not only should be done but appears to have been done - is the law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court. The law should be equal to every individual. There shall not be any discrimination and Constitution prohibits such discrimination. Why abuse of discretionary powers by Judiciary and State through the prosecution agency, seeking detention by the person accused of committing crimes against society?
Please Email the Editor