in bailable offences, the accused has an absolute right to bail, and the judiciary has no discretion to deny it. Denial of bail in such cases constitutes a violation of statutory rights and gross injustice.
In the case of **2021 PCrLJ 1300**, the court ordered that in bailable offences, the accused has an absolute right to bail, and the judiciary has no discretion to deny it. Denial of bail in such cases constitutes a violation of statutory rights and gross injustice.
### Story of the Case: 2021 PCrLJ 1300
#### Background
An accused person was involved in a case categorized under a bailable offence. The accused sought bail, invoking their right under the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Despite the statutory provisions clearly defining the right to bail in bailable offences, the lower court denied the bail application. This denial led to an appeal to a higher court, challenging the decision and seeking enforcement of the accused's legal right to bail.
#### Legal Context
The legal debate centered around the interpretation and application of sections 496, 497, and 498 of the CrPC:
- **Section 496 CrPC:** This section mandates that any person accused of a bailable offence must be granted bail.
- **Section 497 CrPC:** Pertains to non-bailable offences, where the court has discretion to grant or deny bail.
- **Section 498 CrPC:** Grants the High Court or Court of Session the authority to admit any person to bail, regardless of whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable.
#### Issues
The primary issue was whether the lower court's refusal to grant bail in a bailable offence was legally justified. The case questioned the judiciary's adherence to statutory mandates concerning the rights of the accused in bailable offences.
#### Court's Analysis
The higher court undertook a detailed analysis of the relevant sections of the CrPC:
1. **Right to Bail in Bailable Offences:**
- The court emphasized that in the case of bailable offences, the accused has an indefeasible right to bail. This right is not discretionary but mandatory.
- The court noted that bail in such cases is a right of the subject, underscoring the principle that liberty is a precious asset that must be preserved.
2. **Judicial Discretion in Non-Bailable Offences:**
- The court clarified that in non-bailable offences, the grant of bail is a matter of judicial discretion, not an automatic right.
3. **Judicial Obligations and Injustice:**
- Denying bail in a bailable offence, where the accused has a statutory right, constitutes an injustice. Such refusal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, amounts to gross injustice.
4. **Broad Powers under Section 498 CrPC:**
- The court pointed out that Section 498 CrPC allows the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail in any case, whether bailable or non-bailable. This provision underscores the broad discretionary powers of these courts to ensure justice.
#### Conclusion
The higher court concluded that the lower court's refusal to grant bail in a bailable offence was legally incorrect. The court reaffirmed that the accused has an absolute right to bail in such cases and that denying this right is a gross injustice. The higher court granted bail to the accused, rectifying the lower court's error and reinforcing the principle that judicial discretion in bail matters must align with statutory mandates, especially concerning the fundamental right to personal liberty.
### Significance
The case reasserted the clear legal distinction between bailable and non-bailable offences concerning bail. It emphasized the mandatory nature of bail in bailable offences and the discretionary nature in non-bailable offences, highlighting the judiciary's role in upholding the statutory rights of the accused and preserving the principle of personal liberty.
2021 PCrLJ 1300
I. In case of bailable offence the accused has indefeasible right of bail.
II. Bail is not a mere privilege in such cases but a right of the subject whose liberty is regarded as a precious asset to be preserved undiminished.
III.In bailable offence the grant of bail is a right and not favour, whereas in non-bailable offence the grant of bail is not a right but concession/grace.
IV The Court is left with no option but to admit the accused to bail in a bailable offence.
Denial of statutory right to a litigant by the Courts is called injustice. When such refusal relates to liberty of a person having right of bail in bailable offences, it is called gross injustice that means to treat someone in an unfair way.
Plain reading of section 496 of the Code makes it clear that powers under this provision can be exercised by a Court only for a person other than a person accused of a non bailable offence. Whereas perusal of section 497 also leaves no ambiguity that these powers are to be exercised in case of non bailable offence. However, powers under section 498 are beyond any such restrictions of bailable or non bailable offence as it says that “the High Court or Court of Session may in any case, whether there be an appeal on conviction or not, direct that any person be admitted to bail. Words “in any case” used in this provision makes no difficulty to understand that a person irrespective of the fact that he is the accused of a bailable or non bailable offence can be admitted to pre-arrest bail.
When read all sections (496, 497 and 498) together there remains no uncertainty that while deciding an application, may it be for bail after arrest or pre-arrest, in bailable offence the Court is left with no discretion
Comments
Post a Comment