Bail is meant to help accused 'course correct and reintegrate into society': HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a key consideration while granting bail is to provide the accused an opportunity to reform, correct course and reintegrate into society as a responsible citizen.

Traditionally, bail has been seen as a mechanism to balance the individual’s liberty with the interests of justice — a way to prevent absconding or interference with investigation. The observation marks a departure from the conventional view of bail as merely a procedural safeguard meant to ensure the accused’s presence during trial.

“The significant consideration for granting bail is that the court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen,” Justice Anoop Chitkara asserted while granting conditional bail to a director of real estate company accused of cheating, misappropriation and violating the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act.

As per the investigation, the petitioner, along with other directors, opened bookings for a housing project without obtaining the requisite licence or approval of building plans, thereby receiving earnest money from investors and depriving them of their hard-earned savings.

The court held that there was “sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime.” However, Justice Chitkara emphasised that “pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.”

Reinforcing the principle that bail serves a larger constitutional purpose, the court stated that “the law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy and occupies an important place in the administration of justice.”

The concept, the court explained, arises from the tension between the State’s authority to restrict liberty and the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.

Justice Chitkara noted that delay in trial was an important factor that courts must weigh while deciding bail pleas. “Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all fundamental rights, not violated in such a case?” the judgment asked.

Terming personal liberty as “a very precious fundamental right that should be curtailed only when imperative,” the court warned that depriving an individual of liberty without conviction runs counter to the constitutional spirit. “Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21. The curial power to negate it is a great trust, exercisable not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community,” Justice Chitkara asserted.

To ensure that liberty was not misused, the court made the bail conditional.

“This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the court concerned having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail”.