Bail Can't Be Withheld As Punishment: Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts
In a landmark judgment and message to the courts across the country, the Supreme Court today stated that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment to the accused. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a “very well settled principle of law” that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
The ruling comes amid an increasing trend among the lower courts to withhold bail, apparently as a punitive measure.
Read Also: Arvind Kejriwal To File Fresh Plea In Supreme Court Challenging Delhi HC Order Reversing Bail
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a man accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) over the alleged smuggling of counterfeit currency from Pakistan. Granting bail to the man who has been behind bars for four years without undergoing trial, the top court emphasised the fundamental right of a citizen to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India, noting that however serious a crime could be.
While hearing the case, the court noted three important points: the appellant had been jailed as an undertrial for four years while his co-accused had gotten bail; charges have not been framed by the trial court yet; and the prosecution wants to examine 80 witnesses, indicating tardy progress.
The court held that irrespective of the seriousness of the crime, the lower court cannot dilute the essence of speedy trial and personal liberty when deciding issues of bail, while reiterating that rejecting bail cannot be a punishment mechanism.
Notably, the apex court referred to some of the precedents, including the 1978 case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, to elaborate its points. It also referred recent judgments backing the granting of bail in cases of undue trial delay, even under stringent laws like the NDPS Act and UAPA. The court further stressed the principle of the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty stating that the petitioner is still an accused, not a convict.
The court then made it clear that the state does not have the right to oppose bail if the state prosecuting agency, including the courts, does not make the effort to uphold the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
