Only a professional like R.K. Raghavan can make such a bold and objective analysis of the Supreme Court's order releasing five of the accused in the 2G scam case (“Reversal of a dangerous trend,” Nov. 25) on bail. Every right-thinking citizen is eager to see those pronounced guilty of public corruption, however rich and powerful, given the most deterrent punishment in a court of law. But incarceration for an undecidedly long spell before the actual conviction is not acceptable.
When the electronic media are sensationalising public corruption and making it a mawkish issue, it is incumbent upon our learned judges to decide on the bail applications of accused persons in strict terms of intrinsic legal worth.
S. Balu,
Madurai
Although the Public Prosecutor is an officer of the court, and not an investigating agency, he hardly ever acts like one. Is it because the investigating agencies do not allow him to take an impartial stance?
Even in serious crimes, emotions and public sentiments should not be allowed to influence the judges' decisions on bail petitions. Thousands of under trials are languishing in jails across the country. Both the judiciary and the investigating agencies are responsible for this. While the judiciary is liberal in adjourning hearings, investigators lack the skills to crack cases. At times, they also want to harass the accused.
Courts should not routinely accept the investigating agencies' plea that an accused, if discharged on bail, will tamper with evidence, influencing the course of investigation and the like. The law should prescribe a time limit for investigation and trial, beyond which under trials should be released unconditionally.
G. M. Rama Rao,
Visakhapatnam
Notwithstanding all talk of liberty, one cannot ignore the fact that it is invoked only when high-profile people with resources and clout are able to approach the courts at various levels to get relief. Why have the courts not acted suo motu to grant relief to thousands of under trials, who have no resources to pursue their legitimate claims to liberty? In a sense, our sympathy for white collar criminals is misplaced. There is nothing wrong in a judge deciding on a bail plea after taking the particular facts of the case, the clout of the accused, etc., into consideration.
R. Venugopal,
Chennai
Economic offenders know the lacunae in the system. They are aware that once the charge sheet is completed (if at all a case has been made out), things go into cold storage for years and they can roam scot free. Bookish opinion will only pave the way for more serious economic offences.
S. Parthasarathy,
Chennai
I agree with Dr. Raghavan's views on the inordinate delay in the judicial system and that an accused should not be detained unnecessarily. But the argument that bail can be denied to a person charged with serial rape and murder, not to one charged with a white collar crime is unacceptable. If the former poses a physical danger to society, the latter causes a loss to the exchequer.
Harish Thimmareddy,
Mysore
The media, the public, judges, advocates — all have an opinion about the accused. But their views should not affect established rules. Opinions should be grounded in logic. At the same time, they should conform to moral and constitutional norms. An authority ought to discharge his duties, regardless of the prevailing public opinion, or the media's orientation in a particular matter. The media, too, should stop projecting the accused as guilty.
Amit Kumar,
New Delhi
