Skip to main content

Bail

 Bail

Bail refers to the provisional release of an accused in a criminal case when the court has yet to rule. The term 'bail' refers to a monetary deposit made in order to appear before a judge for release. The term bailer comes from an old French verb that meaning "to bestow" or "to deliver." After delivering a bail bond to the court, an accused is given a ball.

The fundamental goal of an arrest is to guarantee that the defendant in a criminal case arrives in court to receive justice. However, violating a person's liberty would be unfair and unjust if the person's presence for the court trial could be secured without incarceration. As a result, bail can be used.

Bail is a type of security offered 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. Bail is a legal instrument that ensures that the accused appears in court. The police and the courts are the two agencies that can grant bail. The primary goal of bail is to guarantee that the accused appears in court for his or her trial. The objective of bail is to guarantee that an accused person appears in court when necessary, however in some instances, bail is not required. The essential rules for granting or denying bail can be described as follows:

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

In the case of bailable offences, the accused has the right to request and be granted bail under section 436 CRPC. In situations involving non-bailable offences, section 437 CrPc establishes certain fundamental 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. In circumstances when there is a fear of arrest, Section 438 CRPC deals with anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court decided in Free Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur vs. State of Bihar that 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 legitimacy 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 new bail from the trial court.

Bail granted by the police

The ability of a police officer to release a person on bail who has been charged with a crime and is in his custody is divided into two categories:

When an arrest is made without a warrant, and when a warrant is issued, the arrest is made. Sections 42, 43, 56, 59, 169, 170, 436, 437, and Schedule I Column 5 of the Code provide police officers the authority to grant bail.

Directions endorsed under Section 71 of the Code limit the police's ability to issue bail under the head.
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