SC issues caveat against bail in ‘serious’ cases once the trial has commenced

THE Supreme Court has ruled that trial courts and high courts must avoid releasing the accused in offences such as rape, murder and dacoity if the trial has commenced and the prosecution has begun examining the witnesses.

A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled to this effect.

While ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’, in a series of judgments, the Supreme Court has laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while granting bail to an accused.

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee, the court held that high courts must take into consideration:

i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

ii) The nature and gravity of the accusation;

iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

iv) Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

v) Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

vi) Likelihood of the offence being repeated;

vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.

In addition, courts grant bail to the accused if there has been a delay in the commencement of trial without fault on the part of the accused person. This is grounded on a right-based approach since speedy trial is part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia versus Central Bureau of Investigation observed that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. In that case, the trial had not even begun.

In the present case, the Bench noted that over a period, it had noticed two things. Firstly, bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court.

Secondly, bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition, thereby testing the credibility of the victim.

The Bench observed that this was not the correct practice.

“Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused.