The Calcutta High Court emphasized undertrials’ right to interim bail, comparing it to parole and furlough for convicts. Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Biswaroop Chowdhury granted temporary bail to a young individual accused of rape for four weeks on April 9.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court recently highlighted the right of undertrials to secure interim bail, drawing a parallel with the provisions of parole and furlough available to convicted individuals. The remarks came from a Division Bench comprising Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Biswaroop Chowdhury on April 9, as they deliberated on the case of a young individual accused of rape, granting him temporary bail for four weeks.
The court’s decision was influenced by the fact that the petitioner, a 23-year-old, had already spent nearly three years in custody without a verdict, a duration that spans 2 years and 10 months. This prolonged incarceration was deemed excessive, especially considering that all key witnesses had been examined and the primary concern remained whether the petitioner’s request for bail was reasonable.
The judges emphatically stated-
“The clear response is no. An undertrial, assumed innocent until proven guilty, can expect their personal liberty to remain intact during trial, with some limitations imposed on their rights rather than resorting to detention.”
ALSO READ: SC Supports Release of 96-Year-Old Life Prisoner in Terrorism Case
The bench further discussed the psychological ramifications of prolonged custody, particularly for younger individuals, highlighting the potential for mental anguish and trauma. They argued that such effects could be avoided during the pre-trial phase unless the release of the accused posed a direct threat to public safety or jeopardized the trial.
The Court emphasized-
“Extended confinement during the trial period strains familial bonds and relationships, causing stress and depression, particularly concerning pre-trial detention.”
To alleviate such difficulties, the bench proposed interim bail as a viable solution, allowing brief periods of freedom for the accused to maintain familial bonds and mental well-being, provided that these releases do not undermine the integrity of the trial.
The Court questioned why undertrials, presumed innocent until proven guilty, should not be afforded similar leniency as convicted individuals who are granted temporary release through parole or furlough. They argued that if there is a provision for convicts to be released on parole for a short period while serving a prison sentence, there is no compelling reason why undertrials cannot be granted interim bail for a brief period.
The judgment emphasized-
“When convicts serving prison time can be temporarily released on parole, it appears unjustifiable why undertrials cannot be granted interim bail for a short period.”
The bench pointed out discrepancies in the allegations against the petitioner in this case. While he was charged with rape and assault with a sharp weapon following an incident involving the victim and her sister on June 5, 2021, the victim’s statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code contradicted the initial accusation. Instead of rape, her statement suggested an attempt to outrage her modesty. Additionally, the medical examination findings did not align with the severity of the charges, further complicating the situation.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court: No Bail for ‘Child Marriage’ Offenders
Advocate Hillol Saha Podder represented the petitioner, while Advocates Kallol Acharjee and Kallol Nag appeared on behalf of the State.
CASE TITLE:
Manaranjan Mandal @ Manoranjan Mandal @ Liton vs State of West Bengal
