Bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment: Supreme Court
- The right to bail of an accused cannot be withheld as a punishment irrespective of the nature of the crime, the Supreme Court recently ruled.
Highlights:
- If the state, prosecution agencies or even courts do not have the wherewithal to protect an accused’s right to speedy trial, they should not withhold bail on the ground that the alleged crime is serious.
- Refusal to grant bail is an unjust punishment leading to “prisonisation” of an accused, who is innocent until proven guilty.
- Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime
- The order was based on an appeal filed by Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh against a Bombay High Court decision refusing him bail in a case under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
- The top court refused a request made by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to adjourn the matter and decided to give Shaikh his liberty back.
- The Bench noted that he has been languishing in prison as an undertrial for the past four years.
- It noted that the trial court had not even been able so far to proceed to frame charges in the case.
Prelims Takeaway
- Article 21