Top court warns against interfering in bail orders
The appeal, filed by the complainant in a cheating case, sought to overturn the high court’s October 2024 decision granting bail to the accused.
New Delhi The Supreme Court has delivered a strong message on judicial consistency, cautioning that it cannot “preach one thing and practice another” when dealing with bail orders. Observing that interfering with bail orders without strong justification would undermine the principle that “bail is the rule, jail the exception,” the top court emphasised the need to align its actions with its own established jurisprudence.
“Every day, we have been saying that high courts and other courts are reluctant in granting bail. If this court starts interfering in all such cases now, we will be preaching one thing and doing something else,” remarked a bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and AG Masih on Monday, while dismissing a plea challenging an Orissa high court order.
The appeal, filed by the complainant in a cheating case, sought to overturn the high court’s October 2024 decision granting bail to the accused. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the high court’s ruling, emphasising that there were no “compelling reasons” or instances of perversity warranting intervention.
“The charge sheet in the case has also been filed and the investigation is over. Why should be keep the man behind bars?” asked the bench, dismissing the appeal. It added that interfering with bail orders without cogent reasons could set a contradictory precedent.
This observation reflects the apex court’s growing emphasis on ensuring judicial consistency, particularly in bail matters, where the personal liberty of individuals hangs in balance. The apex court has repeatedly urged subordinate courts to prioritise granting bail unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
Throughout 2024, the Supreme Court has consistently reinforced the principle of personal liberty, cautioning against prolonged pretrial detention, even in cases involving stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA.
In a series of rulings, the court highlighted that personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected unless restricted by law. It has called upon courts to adopt a balanced approach, ensuring that judicial processes do not turn punitive in nature.
For instance, in September 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual already in custody for one offence could still seek anticipatory bail in another case, underscoring the importance of preserving personal liberty in line with constitutional guarantees.
Similarly, in high-profile cases, such as those involving the Delhi excise policy investigation, the court scrutinised the use of arrests, asserting that bail must not be denied unless the prosecution provides substantial grounds.
The court also stressed that special statutes such as PMLA and UAPA should not be weaponised in ways that violate fundamental rights. It reiterated that the legal process must balance the prosecution’s needs with the individual’s right to a fair and speedy trial.
A September 2024 judgment by the top court underscored the importance of ensuring that the legal process does not itself become a form of punishment for the accused. This ruling highlighted that an accused has a right to a fair and expeditious trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Another judgment last year urged courts to avoid staying bail orders without substantial grounds. This, it held, ensures that individuals are not unjustly deprived of liberty.
Justice Gavai’s observations on Monday reinforce the apex court’s guidance to lower courts that an overly restrictive approach to bail can lead to excessive and unwarranted pretrial detention, which in itself can amount to punishment before conviction.
