Ph.D Scholar at BPSMV, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat, India
Assistant Professor at BPSMV, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat, India
Society is very interested in the decisions about bail, as every crime is viewed as against the state. The choice of whether to grant bail requires balancing individual freedom with the safety of society. In India, the Constitution provides basic rights, such as life and personal liberty. Article 21 ensures that no one can be deprived of these rights except through legal procedures, protecting personal liberty from improper interference. Being in jail, including during preventive detention, greatly restricts a person’s liberty and contact with others, which is lawful only if backed by law. Article 21 safeguards all people, including citizens and non-citizens, but this freedom can be limited by law. Violating someone’s liberty is serious and should only happen when the law permitting it is fair and for the common good. A system that respects the law should impose few and reasonable restrictions on personal liberty. Police cannot make arrests just because they can; they must have a valid reason beyond their authority. Arrests can harm a person's reputation, so officers need to ensure there is sufficient justification for them. While law enforcement focuses on prosecuting crimes, it is also vital to protect individuals from misuse of power by authorities. There is an ongoing tension between the need for public safety and the need to protect personal liberty and dignity. Justice Cardozo raised an important question about whether protecting individual rights interferes with societal safety, stressing the importance of a fair legal system. The Supreme Court has recognized the conflict between society's needs and individual rights. In the past, society's need to convict took precedence, but now there is more emphasis on protecting individuals from wrongful arrest and detention. International human rights law states that pre-trial detention should only be used when necessary for justice. It promotes humane treatment and strict conditions to avoid unnecessary limitations. Sometimes laws restrict freedom to maintain order and justice, especially if someone might commit a crime. A main reason for arrest is to ensure the accused appears for trial and receives a sentence if convicted. If this can be done without detention, it would help balance personal freedom with justice. Bail is intended for this balance, allowing arrested individuals to remain free while awaiting trial, provided they can reassure the court of their appearance. Bail is a way to secure release from custody for someone awaiting trial by offering a form of security. The Tokyo Rules recommend using non-custodial measures, like bail or supervision, instead of pre-trial detention whenever possible. This can help reduce overcrowding in detention facilities and prevent abuses related to lengthy investigations. Pre-trial detention should be a last resort, considering the investigation's needs, societal protection, and the victim's rights. A flexible criminal justice system should provide different non-custodial options from pre-trial to post-sentencing, designed to ensure fair sentencing practices and requiring the offender's consent before formal proceedings. International laws and principles acknowledged by the Supreme Court highlight the negative effects of pre-trial detention on human rights. An accused person's liberty can only be taken through lawful and fair procedures. Bail is a non-custodial option allowing release without endangering the reasons for the arrest. Bail law aims to balance police power and the presumption of innocence. Offenses are labeled as bailable or non-bailable, where bail is a guarantee in bailable offenses but discretionary in non-bailable ones. Courts must exercise this discretion fairly and based on legal rules. The current bail system faces criticism and suggestions for reform from various legal bodies. Generally, people accused of non-bailable offenses do not automatically receive bail as those accused of bailable ones do. Courts must carefully evaluate these cases, following established principles. Judicial discretion should not be completely free, but guided by known rules. The Supreme Court and High Courts have issued guidelines for granting bail, though compliance is inconsistent, indicating the need for a thorough review of current laws and guidelines. The idea of bail in India has evolved over time due to court judgments and laws, leading to a complicated system regarding its application and the powers of the courts. This paper examines bail laws, the influences on bail decisions, and how judges use their discretion. It evaluates the balance between individual rights and societal needs, discusses challenges courts face, and looks at how bail laws affect vulnerable groups in India.
Research Paper
International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 8, Issue 1, Page 588 - 609
DOI: https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.118947This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright © IJLMH 2021