‘Bail is Rule, Jail Exception’ says SC
Such a judgment also comes in the line of other such applications of the same principle of bail in other high-profile cases.
In reaffirming a critical judicial principle, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized that ‘bail is rule and jail is the exception,’ a guideline that should be upheld even in cases involving stringent anti-terror laws. This principle was pointed out as the court reviewed the bail plea of retired police constable Jalaluddin Khan, charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly renting his property to members of the banned group Popular Front of India.
The court, while hearing the case, stated that in this country, heinous accusations cannot be a reason for refusing bail if it is tenable in law to do so to preserve the citizens’ right to liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This right, it pointed out, would only give way to the existence of a compelling legal reason to the contrary.
This, in the backdrop of a 1977 judicial precedent set by Justice Krishna Iyer, which is considered to be one of the cornerstones of the bail jurisprudence, not only in India but in many other common-law countries. The court also opined that the allegations against Khan were serious, but there was no material forthcoming from the prosecution to show that he was directly involved in any terrorist activity or plan.
Analyzing the Impact of “Bail is Rule” on Legal Precedents and Public Cases
The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih junked these submissions in the face of Khan’s case, where he has to be set free, an application of the bail principle that is hugely relevant to cases where legal conditions for detention are not met. Previous rejections by lower courts, citing potential repeat of offenses and tampering with evidence, were found unconvincing in Khan’s scenario by the Supreme Court.
Such a judgment also comes in the line of other such applications of the same principle of bail in other high-profile cases, both that of politicians and of people involved in major public disturbances. The stand of the judiciary in each case reiterates the necessity of bail in order to prevent the wrongful detention of people based on accusations alone, pending a full trial.
You might also be interested in – SC on deaths of Delhi UPSC aspirants: Coaching centers have turned into “death chambers”
