SC Slams Misuse Of Preventive Detention To Keep Accused In Jail After They Secure Bail
What is Preventive Detention?
Preventive detention is a legal measure whereby a person is detained not as punishment for a crime committed but to prevent them from committing future offenses or for reasons of public safety, law, and order. It is a serious restriction on personal liberty but is allowed under certain laws (e.g., the National Security Act, Maintenance of Internal Security Act, etc.).
The Issue: Misuse of Preventive Detention After Bail
The problem arises when an accused person, who has been granted bail by a competent court in a criminal case, is then detained under a preventive detention law to keep them in custody. This essentially circumvents the bail order, undermining the judicial process and violating the accused’s fundamental right to liberty.
Supreme Court's Stand on This Issue
The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized this misuse of preventive detention. The Court has made it clear that preventive detention laws cannot be used as a tool to keep a person in jail once they have secured bail in the criminal case. If bail is granted, the accused should be released, and any detention beyond that point must be scrutinized carefully.
Important Supreme Court Judgments
1. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 8 SCC 273
Facts: The petitioner was granted bail by a criminal court, but the authorities detained him under preventive detention laws.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that once bail is granted, the authorities cannot misuse preventive detention laws to keep the person in custody. Preventive detention cannot be a substitute for criminal detention.
The Court emphasized the principle of liberty and stated that the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be violated by detaining someone under preventive detention laws when bail has already been granted.
2. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 4 SCC 17
The Court reiterated that preventive detention is an exceptional power and should not be used to frustrate bail orders.
It cautioned against using preventive detention to keep an accused in custody after they have been granted bail.
3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 295
The Court held that preventive detention should not be used to defeat the orders of the court granting bail.
Preventive detention must not be used as a tool of harassment or to circumvent judicial orders.
Constitutional Perspective
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
This right cannot be deprived except by procedure established by law.
When a court grants bail, it means the accused is no longer required to be in custody, subject to conditions.
Detaining such a person under preventive detention laws violates Article 21 and the basic tenets of justice.
Practical Implications
Law enforcement agencies must not misuse preventive detention laws to keep persons in custody unlawfully.
Courts must be vigilant and protect accused persons from such misuse.
Detention beyond bail should be justified by proper preventive detention procedures, and mere pretext of detention to keep an accused locked up is impermissible.
Summary
Preventive detention is a serious restriction on liberty but is not a substitute for criminal detention.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that once bail is granted, preventive detention cannot be used to keep the accused in jail.
Such misuse violates the fundamental right to liberty (Article 21) and undermines the authority of courts.
This principle has been reaffirmed in several landmark Supreme Court cases like Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam, and K.K. Verma v. Union of India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments