Abstract

The law safeguards need to dovetail two clashing requests, on one hand, the necessities of the public for being protected from the dangers of being presented to the misfortunes of a man asserted to have carried out a wrongdoing; and on the other, the major ordinance of criminal statute. The assumption of purity of a charged, till he is discovered blameworthy. Keeping in mind the end goal, the Legislature in its intelligence has given exact bearings for giving safeguard. Before determining the place of bail within human rights framework as conferred by the Constitution, it is important to examine the object and meaning of bail, such that an analysis of these fundamental objects and change therein may reveal a change. The object detention of an accused person is primarily to secure her/his appearance at the time of trial and is available to receive sentence, in case found guilty. If his/her presence at the trial could be reasonably ensured other than by his arrest or detention, it would be unjust and unfair to deprive the accused of his liberty during pendency of criminal proceedings.Thus, it is important to note the relevant provisions enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 9, 10, and 11(1).

• 1.   Section 436 provides that when person not accused of a non-bailable offense is arrested or detained he can be detained as right to claim to be released on bail. The section covers all cases of persons accused of bailable of fences cases of persons though not accused of any offense but against whom security proceedings have been initiated under Chapter VIII of the Code and other cases of arrest and detention which are not in respect of any bailable offence. This section entitles a person other than the accused of a non-bailable offense to be released on bail, it may be recalled that S. 50(2) makes it obligatory for a police officer arresting such a person without a warrant to inform him his right to be released on bail.
• 2.   [1978] 2 SCR 621.
• 3.   [1978] 4 SCC 47.
• 4.   AIR1972SC484.
• 5.   Cr. P.C. (Amendment)Act, 2005 (25 of 2005).
• 6.   (2013) 15 SCC570.
• 7.   (2004) 13 SCC 457.
• 8.   (2009) 12 SCC 721.
• 9.   1951 Mad 1042.
• 10.   1989 (37) BLJR 496, 1990 Cri. L.J. 1904.
• 11.   AIR 2004 SC 4258.
• 12.   AIR 2002 SC1475.
• 13.   AIR 2001 SC 1444.
• 14.   977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535.
• 15.   Crl. Appeal No.227/2018 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 151 of 2018).
• 16.   for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.611- 613/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and orders dated 18-12-2017 in WP No. 4926/2017 and dated 27-12-2017 in MCOCS No.08/2011 and MCOC SC No. 01/2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay).
• 17.   https://www.livelaw.in/whether-anticipatorybail-should-be-valid-only-till-the-filing-ofcharge-sheetan-analysis/.
• 18.   SLP (Crl) Nos.7281-7282/2017.
• 19.   Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia&Orsvs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565.
• 20.   SalauddinAbdulsamad Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra(1996) 1 SCC 667.
• 21.   Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694.
• 22.   Supreme Court of India Criminal Original/ Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 67 Of 2017.
• 23.   NDPS Bail Conditions Discriminatory, Irrational And Defy Human Logic, By: Ashok Kini 25 Aug 2021 5:47 PMhttps://www.livelaw.in./ndpsbail-conditions-discriminatory-irrational-anddefy-human-logic-says-punjab-haryana-hc-readorder/
• 24.   Appeal (crl.)349 of 2004
• 25.   Crl. Appeal Nos. 12, 13, 14, 24 and 35 of 2010
• 26.   Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2017(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4437 of 2016)
• 27.   AIR 1979 SC 1360
• 28.   AIR 1980 SC 846
• 29.   (1982) 2 SCC 583
• 30.   AIR 1951 SC 227
• 31.   AIR 1978 SC 1548

Data Sharing Statement

Funding