Descretion in granting bail
james bhatti
(Querist) 01 June 2011
This query is : Resolved
It is said that the bail is a right of the accused. Actually this is not true. The courts have been conferred with the discretionary powers and they have made up their minds not to grant bail. They are declining the bails even on merits which have no appearance of the name of the accused.
Jails are over crowded. Justice is being declined.
What should be the remedy?
G.Sundara Rajan
(Expert) 01 June 2011
File a P.I.L, you do have a wonderful question.
In fact, denying bail is actually hurting a fundamental right of liberty, as law does say, "Innocent until proved guilty". Therefore not granting bail would mean that the person is being held guilty even before trial. That means prejudice on part of courts themselves, as opposed to the principle of law.
james bhatti
(Querist) 01 June 2011
Every thing you have said is absolutely correct. Thank you for the suggestion. Et us be friends.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 02 June 2011
Bail is not absolute right except in bailable offences. Do you mean to say that murderers, rapists, accused involved in Big Scams should be set free on bail? What is expected of judges is to exercise their discretion in a right and judicious manner. Unfortunately, in many cases this discretion is not used in a proper manner.
james bhatti
(Querist) 09 July 2011
You are right to the extent that bail is not an absolute right except in bailable offenses. That was what I meant. If the murderers, rapists, accused involved in Big Scams are acquitted after one or two years. Who shall be responsible for his/her sufferings, emotional and economic losses? Who can compensate for his/her irreparable loss?
I have some cases wherein even names of the accused do not appear in FIRs. Even then they have been declined bail.
Now look, Section 420/406 IPC is matter of record, why the accused should be kept in custody? Generally a person is unable to defend his case because he can not produce the proper record.
Absconding of the accused should not be feared of. This is 21st century and the executive is armed with the updated means and ways to locate the absconder.
Now let me say some thing. The lower courts do not want to take responsibility. They think that the higher court will do. They put their burden to the higher courts also generally do the same. And eventually the applicant has to go to the State High Court. Even if the bail petition is declined there also, he has to approach the Honorable Apex Court of India.
The Apex Court too declines on the ground of CONCURRENT FINDINGS.
The real powers are with the police. Their version is always considered to be true. And every lawyer knows that their version is always wrong, untrue and concocted one. So where is the justice?
My impossible suggestion is that all the SHO's should be lawyers with keen study of Law. They should be held if the accused is acquitted.
Please keep on discussing the matter.
Sincerely,
