Primacy of bail

Bail is the rule, jail is the exception — the Supreme Court has to say it over and over again because lower courts repeatedly ignore this fundamental legal principle. Expressing dismay over the rejection of bail pleas by trial courts in “not very serious cases” despite the completion of investigations, an SC bench has cautioned that a democratic country must not function like a police state. The message to overzealous law enforcement agencies is loud and clear: Desist from exercising arbitrary powers to detain individuals without “genuine necessity”.

No wonder the overburdened apex court is upset about adjudicating bail petitions in cases that should ideally have been disposed of at the trial court level. Sample this: An accused in a cheating case remained in custody for over two years; even though a probe had been conducted and a chargesheet filed, his bail plea was rejected by both the trial court and the Gujarat High Court. Eventually, the SC righted the grave wrong — and this has become a common occurrence.

At the core of the argument for granting bail in deserving cases is Article 21 of the Constitution which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Last year, the Supreme Court had extended the “bail is the rule” dictum to even stringent laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The onus is on trial courts and high courts to be flexible on the bail issue, particularly in cases that don’t involve heinous crimes. This will help the SC devote its energies to pressing matters of public and national interest. At the same time, probe agencies should be held accountable whenever they make indiscriminate arrests and misuse the provision of custodial detention.