The Supreme Court judgment on Tuesday granting bail to former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram puts an emphatic stop to an attempt made by the authorities to alter the factors for granting/refusing bail in economic offence cases.
The October 18 hearing in the Chidambaram bail plea saw Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appears for the CBI and ED in the case, suggest in the court a new “triple test” for grant/refusal of bail.
Mr. Mehta suggested that bail should be ideally decided according to the gravity of the offence involved; the wherewithal of the accused person; and whether the accused seeking bail has sufficient infrastructure abroad to sustain him.
Mr. Mehta had argued before the Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi that economic offences are a blot on the country. They are serious crimes.
“We are in an era where persons guilty of financial crimes are fleeing the country. They were all responsible people. They had reputation, standing in society. They had properties here. One was a parliamentarian, very rich. Is it enough to say he is responsible, reputed? Country needs to go for zero tolerance policy against corruption,” Mr. Mehta had urged the court.
However, in her judgment in the Chidambaram bail plea, Justice Banumathi stuck to the court's established precedents for grant of bail. The court had always upheld personal liberty. Justice Krishna Iyer had quoted the “bail not jail” norm.
The court disagreed with Mr. Mehta's sweeping contention that persons accused economic offences may invariably flee the country.
Justice Banumathi said there was no such “national phenomenon” that all economic offenders would fly away after getting bail.
One person cannot be made to suffer incarceration merely because of the conduct of other offenders in unconnected cases, the court reasoned.
No straightjacket formula for all cases
Each individual case of bail had to be weighed separately. The circumstances of each had to be taken into consideration. They cannot be clubbed together. No straightjacket formula for grant/refusal of bail can be applied to all cases, Justice Banumathi wrote.
“Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to ‘flight risk’ is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved," the court quoted its own precedents and the established law on bail.
In short, the court agreed with the point of view stressed by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Mr. Chidambaram.
“The Solicitor has more than once used the term 'nation' here. Your Lordships do justice in individual cases and not in national cause. Each plea for bail made by an incarcerated individual is decided on its own merits,” Mr. Singhvi had argued.
