COVID-19 prison decongestion policy does not automatically justify interim bail where jail conditions and case seriousness militate against release.

COVID-19 prison decongestion policy does not create an automatic entitlement to interim bail. The text notes that while the Supreme Court directed States and Union Territories to consider releasing suitable prisoners, that direction did not confer a compulsory right to release. It also records that the seriousness of the allegations, the absence of any reported COVID-19 case in the jail, and the decongested jail conditions were relevant factors against release. On those facts, the pandemic policy could not be treated as a standalone ground for interim bail, and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim bail on account of the COVID-19 pandemic and the State policy for release of prisoners.

Analysis: The relief was sought on the basis of the pandemic-related policy for decongestion of prisons. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had directed States and Union Territories to consider release of suitable prisoners, but had also clarified that such directions did not create any compulsory right to release. The Court further considered the seriousness of the allegations, including large-scale loss to the State exchequer, the amount involved, the absence of any reported COVID-19 case in the jail, and the decongested condition of the jail. In these circumstances, the pandemic policy could not be treated as an automatic ground for release.

Conclusion: Interim bail was not warranted and the application was dismissed.

---