On Wednesday(11th Sept),The Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of a man granted bail by the Patna High Court but delayed by six months in jail. The bench criticized the lower court’s condition, emphasizing that any delay in liberty is unacceptable and that justice should not become a form of punishment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday(11th Sept), ordered the immediate release of a man who had been granted bail by the Patna High Court but was required to spend six months in jail before he could be released. The top court strongly criticized the condition imposed by the lower court, underscoring that depriving someone of their freedom, even for a single day, is one day too many.
A bench led by Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, quashed the Patna High Court’s condition, reiterating that justice must not transform into punishment.
“In matters of liberty, even one day delay is a day too many… One cannot be deprived of liberty even for a single day. The process should not become punishment. It’s a matter of personal liberty and constitutional right,”
-the bench observed.
The case involved an individual, Vikash Kumar Gupta, who was accused under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2016. He was charged with transporting 231.6 liters of country-made and foreign liquor, recovered from motorcycles, one of which he was allegedly driving at the time of the incident. Although granted bail by the Patna High Court on July 25, 2024, Gupta was required to remain in custody for six months before he could furnish his bail bond.
Taking a stern view of this condition, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gupta’s immediate release.
“In this case, we overturn the Patna High Court’s directive that required him to spend six months in jail before furnishing a bail bond. He must be released immediately.”
-the bench directed.
ALSO READ: “Strange” Trend of Bail : SC Slammed Patna High Court Order to Grant Bail After 6 months
The Supreme Court made it clear that the delay in his release amounted to an unnecessary extension of Gupta’s deprivation of liberty, despite the fact that the accused had prior criminal cases. The court further emphasized that such bail conditions must not be excessively burdensome.
The ruling from the Supreme Court reaffirms a critical principle in criminal justice: bail should be the norm, and jail should be the exception. This principle has been highlighted in a series of judgments by the top court, including cases involving stringent laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court has emphasized that personal liberty, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, must be upheld, and that prolonged detentions under the guise of legal formalities should be avoided.
“Although the petitioner has had previous legal issues, this does not justify a bail condition that unnecessarily extends his deprivation of liberty.”
– the court noted, stressing that bail conditions should not become de facto punishments.
The apex court has been increasingly vigilant about protecting the personal liberty of citizens, even in cases involving serious charges. It has urged lower courts to exercise caution when imposing conditions on bail and when staying bail orders, so as to avoid infringing on constitutional rights. As the bench observed-
“The process should not turn into a form of punishment; it is a matter of personal liberty and constitutional right.”
In this case, the court’s decision also pointed to the importance of balancing the need for a fair trial with the right of the accused to not face unnecessary delays in the legal process.
“The accused must cooperate with the trial process, attend all scheduled court dates, and ensure there are no delays in the proceedings.”
-the bench instructed.
The Supreme Court’s decision sends a strong message to lower courts across the country to avoid imposing excessive or punitive conditions for bail. Such decisions often place undue hardship on individuals who are still entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This ruling further reinforces the idea that the legal system must not be used to unduly punish individuals through prolonged legal proceedings.
On the same day, the Supreme Court delivered another significant ruling that highlighted the importance of safeguarding personal liberty. It held that a person already in custody for one offence could still seek anticipatory bail for a separate offence. This judgment also reiterated that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 must be protected unless there is a specific legal provision restricting it.
Furthermore, in another order delivered earlier, the Supreme Court stressed that an accused is entitled to a fair and speedy trial as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The court cautioned against allowing legal processes to evolve into a form of punishment, depriving individuals of their liberty for extended periods without due cause.