Abstract

This study seeks to identify the fundamental distinctions between India and other countries in relation to laws relating to bail. Bail is the release of a guilty individual in exchange for a personal bond or assurance that they will abide by the court's rules and show up for court appearances. It is not necessary to keep someone in custody for an indefinite amount of time just because they are charged with a crime. Bail enhances individual liberty and societal interests. A bail-out defendant has more time to prepare and present his case than a remanded defendant. If public justice is to automatically advance, detention must be reduced where there is no fear of disappearance because it costs the public a lot. Judges must weigh fair, humanitarian, and statutory factors before denying bail If the courts have cause to believe the defendant will not come for trial or if it is not in the public interest to offer him bail, he should be released from jail so that he can prepare his defense. But, if it is not in the public interest to give him bail, he should remain behind bars. The decisions made about bail in different countries fluctuate significantly. In comparison to other countries, the notion of bail used in India will be critically examined in this research article. The goal of this study is to show how other jurisdictions approach the same issue in various ways while also highlighting the distinctions between these nations.

Keywords