(Guest)

Bail Powers of Magistrate

I am curious to know if the Magistrate has absolute authority in determining if accused needs to be given bail or not, or is there a legal basis required. I have heard many instances from my friends where the order is in the line of "although prima facie no charge can be made against the accused, given the gravity of the case, we cannot grant the bail". Why would custody be required if no charge can be made? Only on the basis of complaint? Does the magistrate have absolute discretion or does the dicretion have to be based on some statute? If so, which one? Any information would be extremely helpful.....

Reply Follow

3 Replies

SANTOSHSINGH. (ADVOCATE sardarsena@gmail.com) 27 May 2011

bail is right, jail is exception. This is the law.

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant) 28 May 2011

Very precisely defined by @sardarsena

May that be for that mattter a magistrate or a sessions judge, the hinges are below:

> Gravity of the offence

> Seriousness of the allegations

> Prima-facie case made out or not

> Possibility of accused tempering with the evidences ann/or influencing the witnesses

Above all this, is a power so unique, which makes these judges, GODs for the bail seeker. Even when there is no force in the FIR neither the police has been able to procure sufficient evidence, a judge can always reject bail in non-bailable cases.

This according to me is the apathy of our system, that solely on the basis of a complaint any person could be arrested harrassed and maligned. But what recourse does he have, if police or the complainant couldn't provide sufficient proof in support of their cases (during trial offcourse). By this time, the accused has already lived in agony and spent his golden days struggling to live with modesty.

A judge should be neutral while taking up cases for bail, and if the accused can show any proof, or can create a reasonable doubt on the story of prosecution, FIR should never be the sole basis for denying bail. After all, the complainant had a grudge with the accused. So he/she would say all most henious which could be included. So how can we say that it's gospel truth?

peace

Saurabh.V

james bhatti (Advocate) 28 May 2011

Although the accused has a right to bail but at the same time the Magistrates have been conferred with the decretionary powers. Yes, it is disgusting that bails are rights of the accused persons but this is only in books. I have started hating the word "Descretion". This terms develops judges bised, pride and prejudiced.

In short, the right to bail is nothing. Only the descretion of the court is thruth. THE BITTER TRUTH is that the courts believe the version of the Police and disbelieve the version of the defence counsel. It means the police is the executive and they have the powers which they misuse some times.

You will be stunned to know that my client has been declined bail, both from the lower court and the district cours as well., where as even his name does not appear in FIR or any other Remand Papers. My client is in jail. He is quite innocent, old and infirm. Under these circumstances I feel to cry.

letus endure it.