Skip to main content

Bail

                                                  BAIL


Introduction

Bail is a legal phrase that refers to an accused person's temporary release from custody. Bail is derived from the French word bailer, which meaning "to deliver" or "to give." Bail is a term that has been used for a long time. According to the Oxford definition, bail is the temporary release of an accused person pending trial or the deposit of a quantity of money as a guarantee of the accused's appearance in court. Under the CRPC, the term "bail" is not defined. Bail is a type of security given to the court by the accused that he would appear in court to face the charges levelled against him, and it includes personal bonds and bail bonds.

From section 436 to 450 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the provisions for bail and bonds are specified.


Objective


The main objective behind this mechanism is that accused is required by the court during the trial he must appear in court for the trial but this should be ensured without curtailing the basic rights of the accused. And at this situation the process of bail is important. The process of bail is extremely complex mechanism as it should be done with great care. The reason it's so delicate is because an accused applies for bail while his or her case is ongoing in court, and it's impossible to say whether the accused is innocent or guilty. When bail is not granted to the accused, it can restrict the liberty of the innocent accused, or when bail is granted, it can give extra-liberty and freedom to the true criminal.


Bail When and when not to be granted

The phrase bailable offence is defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as an offence that is shown as bailable in the first schedule, or that is made bailable by any other law now in force; while the term non-bailable offence is defined as any other offence other than a bailable offence. The difference between bailable and non-bailable offences is determined by the gravity of the crime, the risk of the accused fleeing, evidence tampering, previous behavior, the accused's health, age, and sex. Though the Crpc contains a schedule for classifying offences as bailable or non-bailable, non-bailable offences are primarily those that are penalized by imprisonment for a period of not less than three years.

The objective of bail is to ensure that an accused person appears in court when required, however in some instances, bail is not required.

The essential rules for granting or denying bail can be described as follows:

a. Bailable and non-bailable offences are the only two types of offences.

b. In the case of bailable offences, the accused has the right to request and be granted bail under section 436 CRPC.

c. In cases involving non-bailable offences, section 437 CrPc establishes certain basic factors for the judge to consider while granting or denying bail. The nature of the offence, prior criminal histories, and probability of guilt are only a few of the criteria.

d. In circumstances when there is a fear of arrest, Section 438 CRPC deals with anticipatory bail.

There are other concerns that the honorable court should consider before granting bail, such as the threat of a witness being threatened, the chance of evidence being tampered with, and so on.

The Supreme Court declared in Free Legal Aid Committee of Jamshedpur vs. State of Bihar that in a session's case, if the magistrate has granted bail, the accused does not need to seek bail from the court of sessions.

In the case of Haji Mohamed Wasim v. State of Uttar Pradesh before the Allahabad High Court, the validity of bail issued by police personnel was called into doubt. In this case, the accused chose not to appear in court after being granted bail by the police. As a result, the trial court issued a non-bailable warrant, which the accused then appealed under section 482. As a result, the court determined that he must seek fresh bail from the trial court. But in contrary in the case Monit Malhotra v. state of Rajasthan, the SC quashed the asking of the petitioner to submit the fresh bail and bond.


Conclusion

It can be concluded that the concept of bail is that it acts as security lodged by the accused person on the basis of which he can be released on a temporary basis but needs to appear in court whenever required by the court. The process of bail takes place while the trial of the accused person is still pending. Generally, a person seeks this option in order to get himself released from police custody. These provisions envisaged in the code gives the brief regarding the provisions of the bail. The process of bail is a legitimate process.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more