The Supreme Court has held that bail should be the rule and jail an exception, even under stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). This observation was made as the court granted bail to a man accused of crimes under the anti-terrorism law.
The accused had rented out his property in Bihar to members of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), who allegedly planned to disrupt Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the state in July 2022.
Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih observed that denying bail in deserving cases infringes upon the fundamental right to life and liberty.
“Once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the court cannot decline to grant bail. If the courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution,” the bench said.
“Bail is the rule and jail is an exception is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied,” it added.
The court was reviewing the bail plea of Jalaluddin Khan, who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on July 12, 2022, after a raid on his property, where authorities uncovered documents related to unlawful activities aimed at disrupting India’s sovereignty, along with PFI literature advocating for a pan-Islamic rule.
Both the trial court and Patna High Court denied bail to Khan, forcing him to approach the Supreme Court.
The court instructed that Khan be presented before the trial court within a week to establish bail conditions in consultation with the prosecutor.
Justice Oka said that the courts should not hesitate to grant bail when it is justified. “When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But the duty of the courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law.”
Rejecting the earlier bail orders, the bench said, “The special court and the high court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI and therefore, the appellant’s case could not be properly appreciated.”
The bench also pulled up the NIA for “distorting” facts, highlighting discrepancies between the witness statements and their documentation in the charge sheet. The petitioner was a retired police constable, and his wife owned the building.
This follows the top court’s recent criticism of trial and high courts for erring on the side of caution regarding bail decisions.
On August 9, the Supreme Court granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy case. “It is high time that the trial courts and the high courts should recognise the principle that bail is rule and jail is exception,” the court said.
In March, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had reiterated that the principle of bail being the rule was “losing ground” in district courts, and this trend required “thorough evaluation” due to the increasing number of bail appeals reaching the Supreme Court.
