Bail and the law: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* The rich benefit more */

2026-04-19T21:55:04Z

‎The rich benefit more

Jyoti: /* SC: ‘Bail not jail’ rule is not meant for... */

2026-03-28T13:46:28Z

‎SC: ‘Bail not jail’ rule is not meant for...

Pdewan: /* Conflicting judicial orders: Calcutta HC wants clarity */

2026-02-20T10:56:17Z

‎Conflicting judicial orders: Calcutta HC wants clarity

Pdewan: /* Life convicts */

2026-02-20T10:44:23Z

‎Life convicts

Pdewan: /* Amount of bail bond */

2026-02-19T08:49:15Z

‎Amount of bail bond

Pdewan: /* SC: ‘Bail not jail’ rule is not meant for... */

2026-02-19T08:47:33Z

‎SC: ‘Bail not jail’ rule is not meant for...

Jyoti: /* Inability to pay for bond */

2025-12-15T19:52:39Z

‎Inability to pay for bond

Jyoti: /* Courts to grant bail if timely trial not possible: SC */

2025-09-25T04:48:17Z

‎Courts to grant bail if timely trial not possible: SC

Jyoti: /* Cooperation in investigations: SC norms */

2025-07-27T07:19:40Z

‎Cooperation in investigations: SC norms

Jyoti: /* Bail with stringent conditions is no bail: SC */

2025-06-04T18:14:11Z

‎Bail with stringent conditions is no bail: SC

@@ Line 363: / Line 363: @@
 In Sibbia case, the SC laid down a broad guideline but had said it was better to leave the dis cretion of grant of anticipatory bail to the trial court or HCs. “ A wise exercise of judicial power nevitably takes care of the evi consequences which are likely to low out of its intemperate use Every kind of judicial discretion whatever may be the nature o he matter in regard to which it is required to be exercised, has to be used with due care and caution n fact, an awareness of the con ext in which the discretion is re quired to be exercised and of the reasonably foreseeable conse quences of its use, is the hall mark of a prudent exercise of ju dicial discretion. One ought no o make a bugbear of the power to grant anticipatory bail,“ SC said But the moot question re mains -why are courts libera n interpreting `liberty' only when politicians, rich and fa mous fear police knocking a heir doors?
-[[Category:India|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIA
+New Delhi : The SC has directed all high courts not to grant anticipatory bail to accused persons who abscond and later, after their co-accused are acquitted on completion of trial, approach constitutional courts seeking protection from arrest.
-BAIL AND THE LAW: INDI]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIA
+A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madhya Pradesh HC order that granted anticipatory bail to the absconding accused, directed him to surrender and apply for regular bail. It frowned upon the HC’s direction to the trial court to grant bail on the day the accused moves the bail plea.
-BAIL AND THE LAW: INDI]]
-[[Category:Pages with broken file links|BAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIA
-BAIL AND THE LAW: INDIA]]
+''' SC: Granting relief sets bad precedent '''
 ==Can be refused even if remand not needed/ HC==

@@ Line 270: / Line 270: @@
 = SC: ‘Bail not jail’ rule is not meant for...=
 ==... gangsters==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/04/25&entity=Ar00305&sk=F6E95F6C&mode=text  April 25, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 297: / Line 304: @@
  The court passed the order while rejecting bail plea of a person accused of working for banned terrorist organisation ‘Sikhs For Justice’ and rejected the plea for release on the ground that he had been in custody for the last five years and trial would take years to conclude.
+[[Category:India|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI
+]]
 =Amount of bail bond=

@@ Line 901: / Line 901: @@
 The victim’s family opposed the minor’s plea and submitted that no protection from arrest can be granted to the applicant and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act bars the jurisdiction of the sessions court on this aspect.
-==Conflicting judicial orders: Calcutta HC wants clarity==
+===Conflicting judicial orders: Calcutta HC wants clarity===
 ''' Cal HC faces juvenile’s pre-arrest bail dilemma '''
@@ Line 922: / Line 922: @@
  The state government’s position in court has been that inabsence of arrest of a child, anticipatory bail plea is inapplicable. The state argued that the word “arrest” in CrPC means confining a person either in police or jail custody, neither of which is applicable to a child.
 =Life convicts=

@@ Line 831: / Line 831: @@
 The current Daksh study too, points to a similar picture: around 31% of those who couldn't avail of bail was due to their inability to furnish a bail bond. In 2.8% of cases, the accused couldn't find a guarantor who could stand as surety . Surprisingly , there is no rule that prohibits the courts from releasing an undertrial where it feels detention is avoidable. The amended Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for release of undertrials under personal bond where he is not able to furnish the bond money or surety .
 =Life convicts=
@@ Line 845: / Line 936: @@
 The court said prima facie, it is of the view that the oral evidence of the PW 4 and the PW 5 respectively is in direct conflict on material aspects with the evidence of the PW 2.
  “The law is well settled. Conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary eyewitness provided it is found to be wholly reliable. If it is found to be wholly unreliable, then there is no problem in discarding the entire evidence. There could be a third category wherein the court may find the evidence of a solitary eye-witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and in such a situation, the court must insist for corroboration in material particulars. We tried exactly to do the same thing by cursorily looking into the evidence of the PW 4 and PW 5 respectively. Prima facie, the oral evidence does not inspire confidence. In such circumstances referred to above, we are persuaded to accept the plea of the appellant for suspension of the substantive order of sentence pending the final disposal of his criminal appeal before high court,” the bench said.
 [[Category:India|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI

@@ Line 268: / Line 268: @@
 [[Category:Pages with broken file links|BAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIA
 BAIL AND THE LAW: INDI]]
 =Amount of bail bond=
@@ Line 287: / Line 318: @@
 Appearing for the Maharashtra government, advocate Devansh Mohta said the accused is an expert in cyber crime and it would be difficult to track his activities once he is released on bail. The SC said, “The accused shall not in any manner use any digital wallet in his name or in any of his associates’ name or do any trading in mining to misappropriate Bitcoin in any manner whatsoever.”
 =Anticipatory bail=

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, 19 February 2026
Line 117:		Line 117:
	The bench also extended the deadline for completion of trial by six months delayed due to lockdown and closure of courts. Refusing the bail plea from the accused’s counsel, the CJI said, “The basic rule of bail and not jail does not apply to these cases. What harm do a boy and girl commit by talking to each other? If one resorts to murder or harming the couple for falling in love or marrying, then there could be no leniency.”		The bench also extended the deadline for completion of trial by six months delayed due to lockdown and closure of courts. Refusing the bail plea from the accused’s counsel, the CJI said, “The basic rule of bail and not jail does not apply to these cases. What harm do a boy and girl commit by talking to each other? If one resorts to murder or harming the couple for falling in love or marrying, then there could be no leniency.”

−	~~== SC: ‘Bail not jail’ rule is not meant for...==~~
−	~~===... gangsters===~~
−	~~[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/04/25&entity=Ar00305&sk=F6E95F6C&mode=text April 25, 2021: ''The Times of India'']~~

−
−	~~''' SC: ‘Bail not jail’ rule not for gangsters '''~~
−
−	The SC has advised HCs not to mechanically apply the “bail not jail” principle while giving relief to gangsters and heinous offenders, and to weigh the effect of bail to such offenders on the safety of witnesses and victims’ kin.
−
−	~~===Corrupt officials===~~
−	~~[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=07_03_2025_001_018_cap_TOI March 7, 2025: ''The Times of India'']~~
−
−	Observing that “over-solicitous homage” to an accused’s liberty can sometimes defeat the cause of public justice, SC has said that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases, particularly in graft cases. The court passed the order while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of a public servant who was alleged to have demanded a bribe in connection with audit of development work undertaken by a gram panchayat.
−
−	~~===… UAPA/ Feb 2024===~~
−	~~[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=09_02_2024_012_019_cap_TOI AmitAnand Choudhary, February 11, 2024: ''The Times of India'']~~
−
−
−	New Delhi: In an important ruling, Supreme Court held that conventional idea of ‘bail is the rule, jail is exception’ is not applicable when an accused is facing charges under anti-terror law UAPA and, also, that delayed trial proceedings in grave offences could not be a ground to seek bail.
−
−	Delineating Section 43D (5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar said that wording of the provision is in contrast with wording of bail provision under Section 437(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, indicating that for UAP Act, the legislature’s intent was to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule.
−
−	“The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase — ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ — unless circumstances justify otherwise — does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAPA. The ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under UAPA is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5) — ‘shall not be released’ in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437 (1) CrPC — ‘may be released’ – suggests the intention of the legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule,” the court said in a case concerning the outlawed ‘Sikhs for Justice’ which has been rising on the notoriety chart because of the statements of its senior functionary, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun.
−
−	The bench said that law has placed stringent conditions for bail and there is no question to grant relief if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation against a person for committing offence under UAPA is prima facie true.
−
−	“In this background, the test for rejection of bail is quite plain. Bail must be rejected as a ‘rule’, if after hearing the prosecutor and after perusing the final report or case diary, the court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied — that the courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence),” the court noted.
−	The court passed the order while rejecting bail plea of a person accused of working for banned terrorist organisation ‘Sikhs For Justice’ and rejected the plea for release on the ground that he had been in custody for the last five years and trial would take years to conclude.
−
−	[[Category:India\|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI
−	]]
−	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI
−	]]
−	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|BAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIA
−	~~BAIL AND THE LAW: INDI]]~~
−
−	[[Category:India\|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI
−	]]
−	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI
−	]]
−	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|BAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIA
−	~~BAIL AND THE LAW: INDI]]~~

	[[Category:India\|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI		[[Category:India\|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI

@@ Line 1,051: / Line 1,051: @@
 The court said charges against Bhattacharya were very serious but need to be balanced with certain other factors like the period of incarceration undergone & the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be finally concluded. The court noted there is no likelihood of wrapping up the trial as the statement of only one out more than 100 witnesses has so far been recorded in the case.
 It said that “Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part of human rights & denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice”.
 The court noted that the trial in the case should have been conducted on a day-to-day basis as per the NIA Act but it was not being followed in this case, causing delay in proceedings.
 The bench stated, “In the given circumstances, we consider it appropriate to direct that the state of West Bengal shall take up the issue & designate more dedicated courts of sessions as special courts for the trial of offences specified in the schedule appended to the NIA Act. At the same time, the central government may also, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, Calcutta may exercise its power & take up the issue at the earliest so that such trials which are pending under the Act may go ahead speedily & the mandate, as intended by the legislature in its wisdom, reflected from Section 19 of the Act, is being complied with in its letter & spirit".
 ==Delayed communication of bail orders touches upon human liberty: SC==

@@ Line 731: / Line 731: @@
 =Grounds for getting bail=
-== Cooperation in investigations: SC norms==
+==Cooperation in investigations: SC norms==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/10/08&entity=Ar02305&sk=8AF7F366&mode=text  Oct 8, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 741: / Line 741: @@
 For category C offences (punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS, PMLA, UAPA etc), the court said that it would be same as Category B & D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions.
 ==Lack of western commode==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:14, 4 June 2025
Line 525:		Line 525:

	The court was hearing the plea of an accused against whom multiple FIRs were lodged and he was unable to come out of jail despite getting bail as he was unable to furnish sureties in different states. The court agreed with his submission and granted him relief and said that bail order should be such that it would protect the person’s fundamental right under Art 21, and, guarantee his presence during inquiry and trial.		The court was hearing the plea of an accused against whom multiple FIRs were lodged and he was unable to come out of jail despite getting bail as he was unable to furnish sureties in different states. The court agreed with his submission and granted him relief and said that bail order should be such that it would protect the person’s fundamental right under Art 21, and, guarantee his presence during inquiry and trial.
		+
		+	==Conditional liberty must override bail restrictions under MCOCA: HC, 2025==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=15_05_2025_001_003_cap_TOI Vineet Upadhyay, May 15, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi : Delhi high court has ruled that conditional liberty must override the statutory restrictions on the grant of bail under Section 21 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
		+
		+	Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the stringent requirements imposed on an accused for bail do not preclude the grant of bail on the grounds of undue delay in the completion of trial. “Various courts have recognised that prolonged incarceration undermines the right to life and liberty, as has been guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution,” the judge said.  The observations came while granting bail to a man in an FIR registered by the Delhi Police special cell in 2018 for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA. According to the prosecution, the accused, Rajesh Kumar, was arrested with 3kg of heroin during a raid in 2017. At the time of arrest, he was travelling in a car registered in the name of a co-accused, allegedly a notorious criminal with 20 cases under NDPS Act. The accused disclosed the names of other associates of the syndicate, leading to arrests and drug seizures, stated the prosecution.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|B BAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|BAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDIABAIL AND THE LAW: INDI
		+	]]

	==Surety demands, arbitrary, should not defeat right of bail: HC==		==Surety demands, arbitrary, should not defeat right of bail: HC==