Table of Contents
Introduction
Bail is a critical part of criminal law where the idea of incarceration being an exception and freedom being a norm is highlighted. However, if the circumstances rendered by a court make the right of bail nearly a right of detention, then the right to bail can very well be rendered nugatory. The terms which a person can offer in light of providing bail can, of course, be limited by the constitutional order of India in relation to Articles 14, 19, and 21. To make it absolutely clear that a case of bail is not an empty formality, it can safely be stated that a court has become cognizant of the fact that bail terms have to be used in such a manner with a focus on balance between justice and rights. The very essence of bail is jeopardized if bail limitation is rendered unreasonable, which in turn abrogates the constitutional right to personal freedom. Administration of criminal justice necessarily calls for a very delicate balance in maintaining a balance between social rights and individual freedom, which can in fact be comprehended with the aid of constitutional restrictions.
Understanding the Nature and Purpose of Bail
Definition and Constitutional Foundation
The bail of an alleged guilty person is usually obtained in order to make sure that such a person appears in court. The right to bail is not guaranteed under the constitutional rules but is founded on article 21, which holds that no one can be denied “the liberty of life or personal freedom without some a legally prescribed procedure.”The Supreme Court “has made and reiterated decisions establishing that the right to bail is founded on a variety of grounds: this right shall always be granted in a manner which is just, fair, and reasonable in nature. “To begin with, ‘the presumption of innocence until proved guilty is a fundamental principle of criminal law,’ which holds pre-trial detention to be ‘only a general exception to this basic principle.’ Secondly, since equal protection is guaranteed under article 14, bail ‘cannot be arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.’ Thirdly, since freedom of movement under article 19 and freedom to occupy under article 19 are both ‘directly threatened by unreasonable bail,’ the constitutional validity of such restriction ‘should be challenged.”
Purpose and Objectives of Bail
The main objective of bail is to make the accused appear in court and meanwhile be granted freedom since the criminal case is in progress. Bail serves a variety of functions in the criminal justice system. The bail supports the presumption of innocence, holds people not guilty of being found not guilty, and enables an accused individual to appropriately defend him/herself. The bail also makes sure that the accused individual continues with taking care of his/her family and community, in addition to reducing overpopulation in prisons.
However, bail is not a right in all cases, and a number of considerations have to be taken into account by the courts, which include the nature of conduct engaged in, the chance of the defendant evading justice, the chance of destroying evidence or influencing witnesses, and the criminal record of the alleged offender. All these factors have to be weighed against the fundamental rights of an individual in order to make sure that any bail requirement is justified.
Constitutional Principles Governing Bail Conditions
Article 21: The Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 has a wide application given by the Supreme Court not only concerning the right to life and liberty but also concerning life in dignity. Such an impression is relevant to the topic of bail because the bail conditions which impede an accused to be released basically deny such a right. The judgment given by the court says that such a procedure of denying freedom to someone ought to be just, equitable, and fair; this is in relation to such a procedure concerning bail terms. Taking into consideration various major judicial pronouncements, it can be established that it is with these critical matters where judges have emphasized that bail conditions ought not to be harsh to such an extent where bail shall become a mere formality. Being granted bail by government authorities shall become rendered if such circumstances cannot be fulfilled with further detention being violated under Article 21. Courts have come to realize concerning financial difficulties, personal bonds, or other circumstances which can never be complied with being violated in effect under bail, which ought to be nullified under unwritten law.
Article 14: Equality and Reasonableness
“The terms and conditions of bail have to be reasonable and non-discriminatory in order to give effect to Article 14 which enshrines equality before the law and equal treatment in law.” “Courts cannot enforce a regime which classifies people into two different categories the people who have money to give bail and those who do not have money to give bail. The basic principle of equality existing in our Constitution would thereby be violated if wealth were to become a factor in arriving at a right over liberty.”
The requirements of the bails, according to the Supreme Court, cannot be arbitrary or excessive in nature but have to fit into the aims they are intended to attain. The article 14 is violated when a very large gap is witnessed in circumstances of accused people in a common situation without a sound reason. The unreasonable restriction of basic rights is supposed to satisfy the test of proportionality and reasonableness.
Article 19: Freedom of Movement and Occupation
Some of these bail conditions constitute a direct affront to the liberties guaranteed in Article 19, particularly the right to move about freely in India, and right to carry out or practice any activity or profession. Among these bail terms which unduly restrict these liberties beyond what is necessary for securing the presence of an accused during a trial can be challenged in a court of law, but not subject to reasonable restriction. The judiciary had noted that the grounds of requiring an accused to give up their passport, to appear at police stations regularly, or to reside in a fixed territory must be reasonable and sufficient in light of the level of danger presented. The paragraphs below will detail how a possible violation under Article 19 can arise in these grounds being imposed on all individuals.
Legal Framework Governing Bail and Its Conditions
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The code of criminal procedure, otherwise CrPC, defines the judicial basis of bail in Indian law in sections 436-450. While in Section 436 of crime cases with a maximum seven-year jail term, bail is a right, but in grave cases, this is controlled by Section 437 of bail. Then in Section 439, power to grant bail in serious felony cases lies with the High Court or Sessions Court, and in anticipatory bail, it is under Section 438.
Worth noting, in particular, is that under Section 440 of CrPC, the amount of the bond and the limits within which it is not to exceed have been dealt with. However, this section is liable to be read in light of the fact that the amount of each of these bonds shall be fixed after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and shall not be excessive, since this is a constitutional requirement which holds that a bail bond shall not be arbitrary or excessive in nature so as to amount to a denial of bail.
Judicial Guidelines and Principles
The rules concerning setting bail terms have been comprehensively formulated by the Supreme Court. Some of the cases which have been cited by the Supreme Court include where bail terms ought to facilitate the appearance of the defendant in court and where bail ought not to hinder investigations and trails in any manner. Any matter which lacks relevance to these two aspects shall be considered unacceptable and arbitrary. While setting bail terms, a court ought to take into consideration a variety of elements, which include; nature and severity of an offense, nature and circumstances of an accused, chances of flight, chances of tampering with evidence or witnesses, and chances of harming a victim or a society. Such elements ought to be evaluated in light of evidence and not fear or revenge.
Types of Onerous Bail Conditions and Constitutional Concerns
Excessive Financial Conditions
Onerous bail terms can take many forms, but financial bail terms can be considered most common. The court sometimes sets bail bonds/sureties which are beyond the capacity of the defendant, and hence bail can be termed a life of continuous imprisonment. The ideal bail ought to be decent and within reach of a defendant in consideration of financial capabilities in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court.
In some instances, the judiciary has set aside the bail provisions which stipulate that a amount in lakhs or crores of rupees be deposited by the alleged in a manner which is not in proportion with the offense committed and financial status of the alleged. Through this, it can be seen that the judiciary has laid emphasis on the fact that bail is never meant for being a form of punishment and therefore it should not be used for making money especially before being jailed or instead of payment of a fine.
Financial status ought not to be used to distinguish freedom since it will discriminate both the rich and poor in a manner which is unconstitutional.
Impossible or Unrealistic Personal Conditions
There are personal terms sometimes imposed by the courts, which are very hard to meet, such as being required to provide sureties by some individual within a given social class or status who will not be present or ready to provide sureties. Bail in essence is effectively denied when the accused is supposed to go to all police stations a given number of times in a day and present all travel documents, including domestic identity cards, or when one is supposed to provide security that cannot be met.
Conditions Violating Fundamental Rights
These are unreasonable and, in a way, that it is impossible to adhere to which, of course, is a constitutional flaw. The application of the doctrine that bail must be real and workable and not formal has been violated when restrictions become hard to fulfill by the accused with unreasonable difficulty. Some bail terms are in direct conflict with the rights to such an extent that they can never be considered a justifiable objective of a bail term. Those bail terms which affect the right to freedom of speech and expression of a defendant, which do not allow a defendant to work or follow any profession, or in which a defendant is not allowed to stay in the place where he/she resides, can become a good exception to Articles 19 and 21, provided they have a sound basis in a bail case. According to a judgment in a case by the Supreme Court, these bail terms cannot be imposed in a way which ends up being a tool for ensuring the penalties or restrictions which can be make available only after conviction. Conditions under which community service, unwilling counseling, or non-attesting to other situations not concerning an appearance at a hearing exist beyond the constitutional standards. Such situations make bail a pre-trial punishment, which is not supposed to be provided.
Landmark Judicial Pronouncements
Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court laid down that bail terms cannot be harsh to the extent that they become impossible for the defendant to fulfill. The court strongly stated that although bail requirements have to be enforceable with a view to getting the presence of the defendant in court, they have to neither humiliate nor punish the defendant before they are found guilty.
The bench explained, “Where a bail application is rejected or a magistrate lacks powers to grant bail, but in case of granting bail, a heavy bail amount is fixed which is not within the means of the accused, such an order referring to a court’s powers would be but a nullity in law.”
This precedent has since been followed in other decisions and serves to ensure a restriction placed on a constitutional right does not make such a right illusory.
State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja 2004 (1) SCC 475
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified again that freedom is a norm, and restriction is an exception. The court stated that bail terms have to be reasonable in accordance with the aim of securing appearance before a judicial hearing. Conditions not serving a good purpose constitute an excess and hence a contravention of constitutional rights.
The judgment underlined the need for the courts to apply their mind to individual circumstances in each case rather than setting standard or template conditions. The application of standard conditions without considering individual circumstances and the abilities of an accused to abide by them makes bail unconditional and hence a violated right under Article 21.
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1980 (2) SCC 565:
This historical case on anticipatory bail laid down broad principles governing all kinds of bail. The Supreme Court in this case stated that the law of bail ought not to be so interpreted and constructed as to abrogate freedom to a greater extent than is absolutely necessary.
The court observed in this case that harsh bail conditions can render a bail order null and void, especially in cases of financially disadvantaged suspects. However, this doctrine has since been applied to standard bail too, ensuring that such conditions are reasonable and feasible.
Practical Considerations and Judicial Approach
Balancing Competing Interests
While making such relevant decisions concerning relevant bail conditions, courts must address a wide array of conflicting interests. One such interest is the presumption of innocence and freedom guaranteed by the constitutions of most countries. On the other side, both the witnesses and the society at large have relevant interest in ensuring that the participation in trials takes place, tampering with any evidence is avoided, safety of witnesses and victims is guaranteed, and finally, ensuring that trust in the judicial system is not lost by society.
The matter of balance in these respects has been clarified by the Supreme Court with a focus on need and proportionality. The requirements must relate to the danger presented by this case and the circumstances of the accused. The balance will not be ensured in a manner aided by an equal treatment in all circumstances which could lead to an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty.Observed in these decisions is an individual assessment with a focus on grounds including ties of the accused with the community, employment, relationships with family, and conduct.
Guidelines for Courts
The trial courts should observe these practical standards drawn up by the judiciary when framing bail terms. These include taking into consideration the financial status of the accused before fixing the bail terms, stipulating minimum requirements necessary to attain reasonable objectives, not stipulating anything which will punish the accused prior to conviction, and ensuring that the requirements are not possible to follow. Moreover, the bail terms stipulated by these lower court judges need to be evaluated from time to time based on a change in circumstances or if they appear excessive. The courts are also mandated to state grounds for which some of the terms are being enforced, in addition to stating why each is relevant to bail. Additionally, in cases where conventional terms are being used, a court ought to consider these in relation to a case before them, rather than relying on standard order formats.
Conclusion
The constitutional limitation with respect to the terms of bails is one of the most vital protection against judicial discretion abuse and violation of fundamental liberties. While it is true that courts have the competence to devise reasonable conditions in case of granting bail, such competence is not unlimited and ought to be exercised within constitutional strictures. The ratios developed by the Supreme Court explain that the grant of bail could not be made illusory by situations that become oppressive and that the semblance of bail is preserved by the underbelly of detention under the cloak of conditional freedom.
It means that the legal status presently remains on the terrain that the bail conditions must be reasonable, proportionate, and capable of being complied with by the accused. They are to be employed to achieve legitimate aims which are related to securing a trial attendance and the prevention of interference with the course of justice without prejudging the accused before conviction, and also without unduly restricting two fundamental rights. In addition, economic status cannot be a factor in determining an individual’s release and circumstances should be tailored according to the facts in each case.
The criminal justice system being in a constant state of flux, courts struggle to keep track of the efficiency in the bail jurisprudence so that it emulates constitutional values. Bail is more than just a procedural concern; it is a basic right to liberty imposed by the Constitution itself. In cases where bail becomes illusory due to excessive conditions imposed, it renders suspects guilty, and contravenes the tenet of innocence and the conceptual cornerstones of justice which are the pillars of our constitutional democracy. The system can only ensure the proper limits on the bail conditions to ensure that the principle of liberty is the rule and the detention exception is the exception envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
This article is authored by Ms. Moubeethi Chakraborty, student at Christ Academy Institute of law Bengaluru.
All efforts are made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published at Legally Flawless. However, Legally Flawless shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to oversight or otherwise. The users are advised to check the information themselves.
