High Court Powers In Bail Under Bnss
Overview
Section 439 CrPC empowers the High Court (and the Sessions Court) to grant bail to a person accused of a non-bailable offense even if the accused is already in custody.
The High Court’s power is discretionary and can be exercised even after conviction, unlike magistrates who mainly grant bail before conviction.
Bail granted by the High Court is subject to conditions that the court may impose to ensure the accused appears for trial.
Key Principles on High Court Bail Powers
Discretionary Power: The High Court exercises this power based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
No Absolute Right: Bail is not an absolute right but a rule of prudence.
Conditions Can Be Imposed: To ensure the accused’s presence, the court may impose conditions such as furnishing sureties or not leaving the jurisdiction.
Balancing Test: The court balances the accused’s right to liberty and the interest of justice (including nature of the offense, evidence, likelihood of fleeing, etc.).
Exceptional Cases: Bail may be refused in serious offenses or where the accused is likely to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Important Case Laws on High Court Bail Powers
1. Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) AIR 1369
Facts: The case raised concern over many undertrial prisoners languishing in jail without bail.
Principle: The Supreme Court held that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of bail as a fundamental right, especially where trial is delayed. The High Court must exercise powers liberally to prevent illegal detention.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) AIR 2447
Facts: The accused was charged with serious offenses under the Rajasthan Arms Act.
Principle: The Supreme Court held that the nature and seriousness of the offense, likelihood of absconding, and possibility of tampering with evidence are relevant factors for granting or refusing bail.
Significance: High Court must consider these factors carefully, and bail may be refused in serious crimes to safeguard the interest of justice.
3. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) AIR 150
Facts: Several accused in a case involving the prevention of terrorism sought bail.
Principle: The Court emphasized that the High Court must be cautious in granting bail but cannot refuse bail on the sole ground that the accused is guilty or that the charge is serious.
Significance: Reinforces that bail is a right unless there are exceptional reasons to deny it.
4. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) AIR 355
Facts: Amarmani Tripathi was convicted for murder but sought bail.
Principle: The Supreme Court held that bail can be granted even after conviction if there are exceptional circumstances.
Significance: High Court’s power extends beyond trial stage to post-conviction bail under Section 439.
5. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40
Facts: Accused in a high-profile scam sought bail.
Principle: The Supreme Court stated that mere pendency of trial or delay does not justify bail. The accused must satisfy the court that bail should be granted.
Significance: Bail can be denied if the court believes the accused may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
6. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260
Facts: Arrests were made without proper justification; the accused claimed illegal detention.
Principle: The Supreme Court ruled that arrest must not be routine and bail should be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Significance: High Courts are duty-bound to ensure no illegal or unnecessary detention occurs.
7. Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 120
Facts: Accused facing trial for serious crimes sought bail.
Principle: The Supreme Court reiterated that bail is not a matter of course but a rule. The court must consider facts, seriousness of offense, possibility of tampering, and ensure that justice is not compromised.
Significance: High Courts must exercise caution but not deny bail arbitrarily.
8. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 9 SCC 1
Facts: Convicted for terrorist acts sought bail based on mental health issues.
Principle: The Supreme Court held that even in serious offenses, humanitarian grounds (like health) can justify bail.
Significance: High Court can grant bail on exceptional humanitarian grounds even after conviction.
Summary of Important Factors Considered by High Courts While Granting Bail
| Factor | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature and gravity of offense | Serious offenses often deny bail unless exceptional. |
| Strength of evidence | Strong evidence may weigh against bail. |
| Likelihood of fleeing | Flight risk can result in bail refusal. |
| Tampering with evidence or witnesses | Courts consider possibility of obstruction. |
| Delay in trial | Prolonged trial delays favor granting bail. |
| Past criminal record | Repeat offenders face stricter scrutiny. |
| Health and age of accused | Poor health or old age may be grounds for bail. |
Conclusion
The High Court’s powers under Section 439 CrPC are wide-ranging but discretionary. The courts balance the right of the accused to liberty against the interest of justice. Case law emphasizes that bail is the rule rather than the exception, but serious offenses or risks of tampering may justify refusal.
If you want, I can also provide specific examples from Sessions Court powers or detail the procedure for bail applications before High Courts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments