Introduction-
In the case of the police arrest the first sight of relief for the accused is to file bail application U/s 439 of CrPC in the Session Court or the High Court, if the bail is not granted or the bail application is rejected from the Session Court or High Court, the accused can appeal to the Supreme Court. But if the bail is granted by the Session Court or High Court can they impose a restriction or any sort of condition on it? Can they grant the bail time boundedly and ask the accused to surrender after the time period is over? In the recent Judgement Supreme Court mentioned about validity of such conditions of the bail?
To learn more about the topic, read the blog till the end, and if there lies any more doubt, feel free to reach out to us at; https://thelegalshots.com/legal-opinion/
Name of the Case-
Manoranjan Rout Vs. The State of Odisha, 2023
Facts of the Case-
The accused was allegedly violated Narcotic-Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS) and kept possession of such substances which has been restricted or prohibited as per the Act and also transported it. A FIR was filed against the accused in the NDPS Act, The accused filed or applied for bail in the Session Court.
However, Session Court rejected the accused plea. Aggrieved by it the accused appeal to the High Court, he pleads before the Hon’ble Court that the trial has been going for a long time there is no process, the witness has not been examined yet and hence, the accused plead to grant him bail. The Hon’ble High Court rejects the plea and give direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the proceedings and complete it within certain period of time, so that the rights of the accused are not violated.
However, Trial Court doesn’t follow High Court directions and thus aggrieved by the same the accused again appeal to the High Court and plead that the directions issued by the Court were not followed by the subordinate court and that still alot of witness are to be examined that it will amount to alot of time and plead the court to grant him bail.
The Hon’ble Court grant him bail but on the condition that the bail will be provided for 45 days only after that you will have to surrender and will be known as interim bail and dispose of the application. Thus aggrieved by it the accused finally appeal to the Supreme Court that either the Hon’ble High Court can grant me the bail or reject it, how they time constraint my bail and grant me bail for certain period. The Supreme Court disposed of High Court order and stated that the order passed by High Court is against the Law, that the condition put forth while granting the bail to the accused is absolutely wrong and even if you have to give interim bail, you need to keep the trial going for certain period
Issues:
(1) Whether imposing a time bound bail is violative of fundamental rights?
(2) Whether the decision of the High Court was valid in granting the interim bail for 45 days?
The Supreme Court said that if someone asks for temporary release from jail (interim bail), their request should be kept waiting until a decision is made. This is to make sure that people’s freedom isn’t restricted unfairly and that bail decisions aren’t rushed.
The Supreme Court used Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal freedom, to support its decision. It said that this right includes the right to be set free unless there’s a good reason to keep someone in jail. The court also looked at past cases to say that putting time limits on bail decisions after a court says someone can have bail would go against constitutional rights and make things more complicated legally. So, the Supreme Court changed a decision made by the High Court on 11.08.2023 and gave bail to the person until their trial in court is finished. The judgment focused on finding a balance between protecting.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court clarified that such conditions are against the law and violate fundamental rights, particularly the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. By emphasizing the importance of fair and unbiased bail decisions, the court underscored the need to prioritize individual freedoms while ensuring compliance with legal procedures. This ruling highlights the significance of upholding constitutional rights and maintaining a delicate balance between liberty and legal frameworks in the administration of justice.
To understand more such complex law in simple ways, stay connected with www.thelegalshots.com .
If doubts still persist, contact our Legal Experts at https://thelegalshots.com/legal-opinion/
