In a pivotal ruling that reinforces the sanctity of personal liberty under the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that granting bail to an accused for a limited period, after acknowledging their entitlement to it pending trial, is illegal. This landmark judgment, addressing a critical aspect of the criminal justice system, emerged from a plea by an individual prosecuted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
The bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, scrutinized an order from the Orissa High Court, which had granted the appellant interim bail for 45 days. The Supreme Court’s analysis led to a significant pronouncement:
“When a court concludes that the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, granting bail only for a limited duration is illegal. Such orders violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
This statement from the apex court highlights a crucial constitutional principle, emphasizing that once a court determines an accused’s right to bail, imposing a time limit on this relief is not just inappropriate but unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s observation was rooted in the specifics of the case, where the High Court had recognized the appellant’s right to bail but restricted it to a brief period, terming it as ‘interim bail.’
The Supreme Court’s critique of the High Court’s approach was clear and firm. The bench noted,
“In short, the high court was of the view that prolonged incarceration with no prospect of the trial coming to an end makes a case for the grant of bail.”
However, it found fault with the High Court’s method of implementing this view, particularly its decision to dispose of the bail application after granting interim bail. The apex court pointed out that if the intention was to grant interim bail, the application should have remained pending.
Further delving into the pattern of such orders, the Supreme Court bench remarked,
“We may note here that this is the fifth or sixth order which we came across from the same high court where, after recording a finding that an accused was entitled to be enlarged on bail, the high court has chosen to grant either interim bail or bail for a short duration.”
This observation underscores a systemic issue within certain judicial practices, prompting a reevaluation of bail procedures.
Concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the High Court’s order. It directed that the appellant should be released on bail until the final disposal of the case, thereby setting a precedent that reinforces the fundamental right to liberty and the principles of fair trial and justice.
This ruling by the Supreme Court is a significant step in ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected in accordance with the Constitution. It sends a clear message about the sanctity of personal liberty and the need for the judicial system to avoid unnecessary burdens on individuals awaiting trial. The judgment is expected to influence future bail decisions, ensuring that once an accused is deemed entitled to bail, it is not encumbered by arbitrary time limitations.
