preserving personal liberty in bail cases

Bail orders should not be too long or too late, says SC

The article highlights the recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding bail orders and preserving personal liberty. (Source: The Hindu 15th May 2023)

What is the context?

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of preserving personal liberty in bail cases. Court stated that bail orders should not be excessively long or delayed.
• Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol highlight the potential prejudice caused by extensive deliberations on the merits of the case or evidence during the bail stage.
• They underscore the need for brevity in bail orders and prompt pronouncement of decisions.

Key points of judgment:

1. Avoiding Lengthy Deliberations:

   • Furthermore, judges should refrain from engaging in extensive deliberations on the merits of the case or evidence while granting or rejecting bail.
   • In addition, prolonged debates during the bail stage may unfairly prejudice the case against the accused.

2. Timeliness of Bail Orders:

   • Moreover, the pronouncement of the decision should not unduly delay once the court reserves a case for bail orders.
   • Any delay in delivering the bail order infringes upon the personal liberty of the undertrial, undermining the constitutional mandate.

3. Importance of Brevity in Bail Orders:

   • Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasizes the significance of brevity in bail orders, discouraging the practice of providing detailed elaboration of evidence.
   • Furthermore, extensive discussions on evidence in bail orders can be detrimental to the accused’s case.

4. Case Illustration: Kadar Nazir Inamdar:

   • In a relevant case, the court grants bail to Kadar Nazir Inamdar, who is accused in the 2020 murder of Shiv Sena leader Rahul Shetty.
   • Notably, advocates Sana Raees Khan and Sriram Parakkat represent Inamdar in court.
   • The Bench cites this case while underscoring the need for shorter and prompt bail orders.

5. Criticism of Lengthy and Detailed Bail Orders:

   • The Bombay High Court rejected Inamdar’s bail application through a 16-page order that extensively elaborated on the merits and evidence of the case.
   • Moreover, the Supreme Court disapproves of such lengthy bail orders, as they deviate from the desired brevity.
   • Additionally, the High Court’s practice of reserving the case for orders for three months is also criticized.

6. Deprecation of Delayed Pronouncement:

   • The Supreme Court condemns the practice of prolonged delay between reserving the matter for order and pronouncing the bail decision.
   • Noting the impact on personal liberty, the Court emphasizes the need for promptness in delivering bail orders.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling emphasizes preserving personal liberty and the importance of shorter and timely bail orders to uphold the constitutional mandate of personal liberty. Extensive deliberations on the case’s merits should be avoided, and bail decisions should be delivered promptly to minimize the infringement upon an undertrial’s personal liberty. The Court urges judges to maintain brevity in bail orders and discourage the detailed elaboration of evidence.

For more analysis on current affairs issues, please visit