The Supreme Court had reiterated that bail is a matter of right
In legal matters, courts have a right to detain a person. This can be due to non-compliance of court orders, possibility of escape and disappearance, or the chance that a person will tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses. There are, indeed, some very serious crimes where bail can be justly refused by the courts.
The Supreme Court had reiterated that bail is a matter of right. That means that the balance of convenience must be in the favour of the person charged. In other words, it is better to grant bail rather than refuse it. Of course, as in all things legal, this comes with a rider. Bail usually entails a money deposit with the court and a surety, a person who is responsible for the accused turning up when asked to.
This leads us to some intriguing thoughts. Suppose a man travels by train. He is too poor to buy a ticket; but the urgency of travel is very high. A child may be sick. A relative may have died. He received the message on his friend’s cell phone.
He gets caught for ticket-less-travel. He has no money to pay the fine. He is arrested and put in a lock-up by the railway police. He is produced, on the next working day, which may be three days later, before a magistrate. It is a small offence. The magistrate understands that, when caught entrain, the man can produce no surety. So, a monetary bail bond is imposed.
We now come to a catch-22 situation. The man is arrested because he had no money to buy a ticket and now he has to shell out money to get bail.
You be the judge. What would you do?
The Supreme Court has, again, come to the rescue of the common man. “Poverty can’t be a ground for keeping in custody an accused who is unable to furnish the bail bond,” the social justice bench, comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit, said. We feel that this is as path-breaking an order as any.
Moreover, the court has asked the legal aid people to make sure that this ruling is implemented all over the country. The sad fact is that, as of last year, 278,000 persons were languishing in jails across the country. Of these, 67% are under-trials; more than 186,000 are awaiting trial. Considering that the conviction rate in India is abysmally low, why are jails so overcrowded?
Under-trials are kept in a lock-up—a euphemism for a jail—for indefinite periods. The main business of the police is to quickly make out a case, a charge-sheet, and present it to the court. The court then decides on the bail, or whether to release the person. In myriad cases, though, the person rots in jail for a period longer than what he would have served, if he had been tried and convicted. For this, the cops are solely to blame.
Of course, if you are the high and mighty, you do not spend more than a night in jail. The privileged class suddenly becomes prone to ‘heart attacks’. The poor guys are rushed to hospital where they stay in comfort, till the day of reckoning; which never arrives till death or contacts solve the matter. Usually, by the latter.
Can anything be done about it? One cause of concern is public perception and pre-trial conviction by the sensationalising media. Once one reads in the newspapers of an arrest, along with juicy details, it is assumed that the person is as guilty as hell. This, often, translates into a fear in the minds of the authorities against early bail. More often than not, the bail plea is rejected. Better to err on the side of caution.
So, in spite of the hue-and-cry against the judges, there are some who uphold human dignity and act with sanity and fearlessness. We need our courts.
Have already done so. But M Allzwell needs to get in touch with us. Will he/she?
Let's hope so.
Bapoo M. Malcolm
M. Agitated,
Before I answer anything, would like to know your name and qualifications and if you are personally interested in the matter.
Next, as a responsible lawyer, I would like to hear the other side too. Finally, were you present in the court or is this hearsay?
As for someone being a CA of 15 years, it cuts no ice with me. I may be a lawyer of 100 years, but would still not understand accounts. To each his own.
If you wish to correspond, my email address is:
Please give me all the details; especially if you were in court.
You may be right BUT you could be wrong. There are always two sides to the story. Audi alteram partem.
M. Agitated,
Before I answer anything, would like to know your name and qualifications and if you are personally interested in the matter.
Next, as a responsible lawyer, I would like to hear the other side too. Finally, were you present in the court or is this hearsay?
As for someone being a CA of 15 years, it cuts no ice with me. I may be a lawyer of 100 years, but would still not understand accounts. To each his own.
If you wish to correspond, my email address is:
Please give me all the details; especially if you were in court.
You may be right BUT you could be wrong. There are always two sides to the story. Audi alteram partem.
A recent case at the State Consumer Redressal forum comes to mind. Mr. R Chavan, Retired Judge of the high court was so helpful to a person-litigant as to be almost be fatherly. But the person in question had no documents to prove any thing. He said that he had given all the originals to the other side! Now, whom does the court believe?
Bapoo M. Malcolm
I was 16 years old when my friend died in my arms, killed in an accident by a drunk taxi driver, at 6 in the morning. Bombay was dry then. The accused got 6 months. Why? Under the influence of alcohol, it was argued. It made no sense to me then.
The law distinguishes between a premeditated act and an unplanned one. The former is punished with greater force. In Salman's case, this was the reason for the bail, I am sure.
If the blackbuck story is true, he should be sentenced with all the power of the law. He knew what he was doing.
Consider the Jessica Lal case. The lawyer cooked up some story of a tall 'Sardar'. No one took it seriously. If, instead, the accused had pleaded the truth about being punch-drunk, he would have fared no worse than the taxi driver. But then, lawyers do get oversmart. Maybe legal aid may have been better!
Next, coming soon, more poetry from Salman's dad?
My Dad, no poet, would have said, "Be a man and take your punishment". But they don't make them like that any more.
Bapoo M. Malcolm
He is right when he says High Contacts pay a vital part. But is the value of moneybag or a celebrity status less ? Good at heart Sanjay Dutt and his illustrious family and high contacts played a big role in keeping him out till 17 years. Draconian TADA was withdrawn and ultimately for a 'Mistake' he had to undergo jail for the minimum period as per law. Salmankhan, having been sentenced by two trial courts( Jodhpur & Mumbai) is enjoying liberty ,again with money power and mass craze. Is there any case in history where a person jailed by sessions court for a grave offence of Homicide, can get bail and suspension of sentence within 200 minutes from HC? Bravo Money power to get the sharpest legal heads to bail him out. So verdict of Supreme Court would also require money to get a person his liberty. Nothing comes free in this country.
The poor can ask for legal help; how good that can be? Well, no one can be sure. But it is available.
The 'nexus' that is mentioned may be true, but the losing side, or its lawyer, is quick to blame the system. Sometimes it may help to admit that one had a bad case to begin with.
Judges are selected directly, especially to the High courts and the Supreme Court. But they need to be excellent lawyers first and have some length of practice.
Bapoo M. Malcolm
Judges need to be selected directly and not from the pool of lawyers as most of the cases dragged too much due to the lawyer-lawyer-judge nexus.