In the Sunil Fulchand v. Unionof India case, the Supreme Court introduced the idea of bail. In criminal law, bail is well-understood, and the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 has extensive bail provisions. A person is granted bail if they have been arrested for an offense for which they are not eligible for bail, or if they have been found guilty following a trial. When the accused is granted bail, the court maintains its constructive contract rights based on the terms of the bond it secured from him, releasing the accused from custody.
It is crucial to keep in mind that the legislature has evaluated the strength of the prosecution’s case against the accused as well as the prosecution’s capacity to offer prima facie evidence in support of the accusation when determining whether or not to issue bail. It is not expected that the evidence will establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at this time. When using judicial discretion, consideration for human and just factors should be given. It should be excluded that bail should not be given in certain cases of severe, horrible, and inhumane crimes, in addition to the democratic ideal of liberty.
The authority to set bail in a bail application shall be applied in accordance with established guidelines, considering the particulars of each case. When determining whether to issue bail, several factors must be considered, including the nature of the charge, the evidence supporting it, the accused’s prior behaviour and character, and the public’s and the state’s significant concerns. However, some prisoners are denied bail because they cannot afford to post the required security, which is a result of their poverty. In situations such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the legitimate exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail should be based on natural considerations. The trial court found the accused guilty in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand.He was exonerated by the High Court after filing an appeal.
In accordance with Article 138 of the Constitution, the state petitioned the Hon’ble Supreme Court for special leave. The Court gave the accused the order to turn himself in. He then submitted a bail application. Justice Krishna Iyer initially voiced his disapproval of the unfair bail system that was in place at the time. Despite the lengthy history of the financial bail system, it is time to reevaluate. It’s possible that an undertaking will be sufficient in most cases. The State of M.P. case of Moti Ram and Ors. included the conviction of the accused, a poor mason. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was instructed to increase the bail amount by the Supreme Court in an unclear ruling that did not include any specific bonds, sureties, or other requirements.
Justice Krishna Iyer again criticized the unjust bail system that was in place in India in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. The code does not define bail, despite classifying certain offenses as either bailable or non-bailable.Justice P.N. Bhagwati further discussed how the bail system is unfair and inequitable when considering an individual’s financial situation. A large number of people who are taken before the courts in criminal matters are so impoverished that even a little amount of money will be impossible for them to afford, even when the amount of bail is substantial for some. When using judicial discretion, the human and just aspects should be considered. It should be ruled out that bail should not be granted in certain cases of heinous, horrifying, and cruel offenses in addition to the democratic concept of liberty. With the use of bail, an accused person can be freed from custody prior to their trial.
A person in jail may apply for bail under Section 439 (1), to the High Court even if their application is rejected by the Court of Session, as the High Court is not using its revisionary authority in these situations, but rather its special authority. However, judicial decorum dictates that the Court of Session should tell the accused to go to the High Court if the new application was intended to overturn the previous ruling that the High Court had denied bail.
It is a well-established rule that unless there has been a substantial change in the circumstances, no further bail application may be granted. Bail applications are not subject to the principles of res judicata, of course, but continually requesting bail without a change in circumstances can set a precedent.
A bail application that is denied does not automatically mean that it won’t be granted in the future if more evidence, fresh information, and different circumstances are presented. Interim directives are not final decisions, and modified reconsideration does not reverse an earlier denial.
Because of our nation’s hierarchical structure, the doctrine of judicial discipline is binding on the courts even though the res judicata principle and other related theories do not apply in criminal cases. When a bail application is being reviewed later after it has already been denied, the rulings of a higher Court or a co-ordinate bench must be carefully taken into consideration. When rejecting the bail application in this instance, the courts must take the previous or higher court’s opinion into account. Generally speaking, previously discussed subjects cannot be brought up again on the same grounds because doing so would create uncertainty and conjecture regarding the administration of justice as well as the potential for forum hunting. Even in bail situations, the ruling of a superior forum is unquestionably binding on the subordinate unless there is a significant change in the facts necessitating a fresh ruling
Prachi Gupta is an advocate
