Trial Courts Rarely Muster Courage To Grant Bail, Expect High Courts To Act Judiciously: SC
📖 Trial Courts Rarely Muster Courage To Grant Bail, Expect High Courts To Act Judiciously: Supreme Court
🔹 Background
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception (originating from State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, 1977). Despite this, trial courts often hesitate to grant bail, even in cases where it is legally permissible. This reluctance forces accused persons to approach the High Courts or even the Supreme Court, burdening higher judiciary with bail matters.
The SC has criticized this trend, urging trial courts to apply judicial mind independently and High Courts to act with greater responsibility in protecting the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
🔹 SC’s Observations
Trial Courts’ Reluctance
Trial courts often show hesitation in granting bail due to pressure, fear of criticism, or administrative reasons.
This results in unnecessary incarceration, violating personal liberty.
High Courts’ Role
SC expects High Courts to act judiciously and liberally while dealing with bail applications.
High Courts must strike a balance between individual liberty and societal interest.
Fundamental Right
Bail jurisprudence flows directly from Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Keeping an accused in jail for long periods without trial is unconstitutional.
🔹 Important Case Laws
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51
SC laid detailed guidelines on granting bail.
Observed that trial courts rarely grant bail, leading to unnecessary jail overcrowding.
Directed courts to apply bail first, jail later principle.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) AIR 1369 (SC)
Landmark case on speedy trial and bail.
SC held that undertrials languishing in jail for years without trial is a violation of Article 21.
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) AIR 2447 (SC)
Justice Krishna Iyer held: “Bail is the rule, jail the exception.”
Denial of bail should not be used as a form of punishment before conviction.
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240
SC stressed that bail decisions involve balancing personal liberty and societal interest.
Trial courts must exercise discretion, not adopt a mechanical approach.
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40
SC granted bail in 2G scam case.
Observed that mere seriousness of offence is not enough to deny bail, unless there is risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
SC laid down guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrests and prolonged custody.
Emphasized that courts must not act mechanically in remand/bail matters.
🔹 Key Takeaways
Trial courts must overcome reluctance and exercise discretion in granting bail.
High Courts are expected to act judiciously, safeguarding liberty while ensuring fair trial.
Bail jurisprudence is a constitutional safeguard under Article 21.
Unnecessary incarceration = violation of right to life and liberty.
✅ Thus, the Supreme Court reminds that trial courts should not shy away from granting bail, and High Courts must act as vigilant guardians of liberty, ensuring that bail remains the rule and jail the exception.
RELATED Blog
0 comments