In ranks at the bottom of the world in so far as contract enforceability is concerned.
With 3.5 cr cases pending in courts, justice is just a dream in India, just like other basics of life. This scenario confirms that a democracy cannot be successful in third world country and India, hailed as an exception recently, has proved that it is not an exception anyway. Anna's movement has shown that our democracy is wafer thin and only name sake. We are yet to get a genuine democracy in india.
Coming to criminal law, relating to Bails, I find that it is extremely subjective, and dependent on bias of the concerned judicial officer. Judges have earned reputation of being too tough or soft on bail matters and accused (& their lawyers) elect a bench before which to argue their bail application. They wait for weeks and months if the bench is headed by a judge with adverse reputation.
To make matters worse, current rules are that once a bail application is rejected, second application must also be presented to the same judge only. This further aggravates the implications of prejudice and bias. Under an objective and fair legal system, an individual judge should not matter at all, and if at all, system should be such that second application is not heard by the same judge so that some element of bias could also be removed.
I think the legal franternity must demand a change in the law and practice relating to bails which must ensure that every accused SHALL BE GRANTED BAIL unless answer to any of the following three questions is a yes via.,
1) is the accused likely to run away and not be available to face the trial,
2) is the accused likely to temper with or influence witness/evidence, and
3) is the accused a threat to society and likely to repeat same crime if released on bail.
If answer to all the three questions is a negative, BAIL MUST BE ACCEPTED. This way, we will restore justice to our legal system, and minimise bias as well as corruption.
Regards,
