Bail is not to be denied as punishment, SC reminds lower courts

New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has expressed concern over the increasing trend among High Courts and Trial Courts of treating bail denial as a punitive measure. A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan underscored the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment.

The ruling came in response to an appeal for bail by a man accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for allegedly smuggling counterfeit currency from Pakistan. The bench granted bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for four years without the commencement of his trial. Highlighting the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India, the bench noted the gravity of the crime should not overshadow an accused’s fundamental rights.

Justice Pardiwala observed: “Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.”

The bench pointed out three crucial aspects of the case: First, the appellant had been an undertrial for four years while his co-accused had been granted bail. Second, the Trial Court had not yet framed charges. and third, the prosecution planned to examine 80 witnesses, indicating a protracted trial.

Emphasising the need for lower courts to uphold the principles of speedy trial and personal liberty in bail decisions, the bench reiterated that bail denial cannot serve as a punitive mechanism, regardless of the alleged offence’s severity.

The court relied on several precedents, including the 1978 case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, which highlighted that the purpose of detaining an undertrial is to ensure a speedy trial and effective case disposal, not punishment.

Furthermore, the bench referenced recent judgments that support granting bail in cases of undue trial delay, even under stringent laws like the NDPS Act and UAPA.

The court underscored the presumption of innocence, stating: “We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.”

Taking strong exception to the trial delays and prolonged incarceration, the court concluded that if the state and prosecuting agencies cannot ensure a speedy trial, they should not oppose bail solely based on the seriousness of the crime. Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, applies universally, regardless of the crime’s nature.

“If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.”

The appeal was allowed, highlighting the infringement of Article 21 by the prosecuting agency and the court’s handling of the case, sending a clear message to courts across the country to uphold the fundamental rights of the accused.with agency inputs