About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

6 NUJS L. Rev. 549 (2013)
Inconsistent and Unclear: The Supreme Court of India on Bail

handle is hein.journals/nujslr6 and id is 583 raw text is: INCONSISTENT AND UNCLEAR: THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON BAIL Vrinda Bhandari* This paper seeks to analyse the law in respect of bail and pre-trial de- tention in India, testing judicial precedent on the anvil of the presumption of innocence with specific reference to two contrasting decisions of the Supreme Court, earlier in Pappu Yadav v. Central Bureau oflnvestigation and more recently in the 2G case in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation. Itfocuses only on conditions of bail set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure and does not look at special legislation. The paper concludes by suggesting measures for legislative and judicial reform to harmonise law relating to bail across India. I. REVISITING THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE The recent decision of the Supreme Court granting bail to the accused in the 2G case has generated a lot of interest and heated debate.' Nevertheless, to understand the true implications of the decision and how it affects bail jurisprudence in India, it is necessary to revisit the principles of presumption of innocence. The principle of presumption of innocence represents far more than a rule of evidence.2 It embodies freedom from arbitrary detention and serves as a bulwark against punishment before conviction. More importantly, it prevents the State from successfully employing its vast resources to cause greater damage to an un-convicted accused than he/she can inflict on society.3 While considering bail applications of the accused, courts are re- quired to balance considerations of personal liberty with public interest. This paper argues however, that Indian Courts have applied inconsistent standards in connection with the law in respect of bail and have rarely, if ever, paused to consider the ramifications of their decisions on the right to be presumed B.A., LL.B. (Hons), National Law School of India University, Bangalore; BCL Candidate in Law, Magdalen College, University of Oxford. Sanjay Chandrav. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077 (SC). 2 L.H. Tribe, An Ounce ofDetention: Preventive Justice in the World ofJohn Mitchell, 56(3) VIRGINIA L.R. 371, 404 (1970); M. Zander, Bail: A Re-appraisal, 67 CRIMINAL L.R. 25, 26 (1987). 3 A. Ashworth, Four Threats to the Presumption ofInnocence, 10(4) INT'L J. OF EVIDENCE AND PROOF 241, 261 (2006).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most