2018 (2) TMI 410 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Presumption of Innocence & Grants Bail, Emphasizes Humane Treatment in Decisions

The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the importance of bail as the general rule in criminal cases. Factors such as past conduct ... Presumption of innocence - grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception - judicial discretion in grant or denial of bail - humane approach to remand and bail - non-arrest during investigation as a relevant factor for bail - conditions of bail must be reasonable and practicablePresumption of innocence - non-arrest during investigation as a relevant factor for bail - judicial discretion in grant or denial of bail - humane approach to remand and bail - Whether the appellant should be granted bail despite allegations of cheating and negotiable instrument offence. - HELD THAT: - The Court emphasised the foundational principle of the presumption of innocence and that bail is generally the rule while custody is the exception. A judge must exercise discretion judiciously, humanely and with reasonable conditions that are capable of compliance. The Court placed weight on the fact that the appellant was not arrested during a prolonged investigation and that the investigating officer did not find it necessary to arrest him, coupled with the High Court having earlier granted time to the appellant to appear before the trial court. These circumstances indicated absence of real apprehension that the appellant would abscond or tamper with the trial. The State did not oppose bail and there was nothing on record to show prior unacceptable or illegal conduct by the appellant. Applying these factors, the Court held that the trial court and the High Court ought to have exercised their discretion to grant bail and therefore directed that bail be granted on reasonable conditions to be fixed by the trial judge. The Court made no comment on the merits of the allegations, which remain for trial. [Paras 12, 17, 18, 19, 20]The appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to be released on bail subject to reasonable conditions to be fixed by the trial judge; no opinion is expressed on the merits of the allegations.Final Conclusion: Bail granted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed grant of bail on reasonable conditions to be fixed by the trial judge, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations. Issues:Grant of bail, Judicial discretion, Factors for consideration in bail applications, Presumption of innocence, Reverse onus in criminal lawAnalysis:The judgment by the Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, which is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It highlighted that bail is the general rule, and incarceration should be the exception. The court expressed concerns about the increasing number of incarcerations and stressed the importance of judicial discretion in granting or denying bail.The court discussed the factors that need to be considered while deciding on bail applications. These factors include whether the accused was arrested during investigations, their cooperation with the investigating officer, past criminal record, general conduct, financial status, and whether the accused is a first-time offender. The court also emphasized the need for a humane approach in dealing with bail applications to uphold the dignity of the accused and address the issue of overcrowding in prisons.The judgment referred to historical perspectives on the provision for bail, highlighting that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. It emphasized that while bail is at the discretion of the judge, it should be granted judiciously and compassionately. The conditions for bail should not be so strict as to make the grant of bail illusory.In the specific case discussed in the judgment, the appellant had been in judicial custody for a considerable period after being taken into custody following the filing of a charge sheet. The trial judge and the High Court had rejected the appellant's bail applications. The court observed that there was no indication that the appellant would abscond or interfere with the trial proceedings. Considering all factors, the court found it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant with conditions to be set by the trial judge.The court clarified that its decision to grant bail did not imply an opinion on the allegations made against the appellant. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal and ordering the appellant's release on bail, leaving the determination of the allegations to be addressed during the trial proceedings.