2018 (2) TMI 410 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of Bail - fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence - Held that - The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory. It is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the appellant. This is a matter that will, of course, be dealt with by the trial judge. However, what is important, as far as we are concerned, is that during the entire period of investigations which appear to have been spread over seven months, the appellant was not arrested by the investigating officer. Even when the appellant apprehended that he might be arrested after the charge sheet was filed against him, he was not arrested for a considerable period of time. When he approached the Allahabad High Court for quashing the FIR lodged against him, he was granted two months time to appear before the trial judge. All these facts are an indication that there was no apprehension that the appellant would abscond or would hamper the trial in any manner. The trial judge, as well as the High Court ought to have judiciously exercised discretion and granted bail to the appellant - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail, Judicial discretion, Factors for consideration in bail applications, Presumption of innocence, Reverse onus in criminal law

Analysis:

The judgment by the Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, which is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It highlighted that bail is the general rule, and incarceration should be the exception. The court expressed concerns about the increasing number of incarcerations and stressed the importance of judicial discretion in granting or denying bail.

The court discussed the factors that need to be considered while deciding on bail applications. These factors include whether the accused was arrested during investigations, their cooperation with the investigating officer, past criminal record, general conduct, financial status, and whether the accused is a first-time offender. The court also emphasized the need for a humane approach in dealing with bail applications to uphold the dignity of the accused and address the issue of overcrowding in prisons.

The judgment referred to historical perspectives on the provision for bail, highlighting that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. It emphasized that while bail is at the discretion of the judge, it should be granted judiciously and compassionately. The conditions for bail should not be so strict as to make the grant of bail illusory.

In the specific case discussed in the judgment, the appellant had been in judicial custody for a considerable period after being taken into custody following the filing of a charge sheet. The trial judge and the High Court had rejected the appellant's bail applications. The court observed that there was no indication that the appellant would abscond or interfere with the trial proceedings. Considering all factors, the court found it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant with conditions to be set by the trial judge.

The court clarified that its decision to grant bail did not imply an opinion on the allegations made against the appellant. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal and ordering the appellant's release on bail, leaving the determination of the allegations to be addressed during the trial proceedings.