A Glance at the Misuse of Bail Provisions within the Legal Framework of India

Abstract

In the realm of criminal trials, the decision to incarcerate an accused individual serves multiple critical purposes within the legal framework. Primarily, it ensures the defendant’s participation in on-going judicial proceedings and guarantees their appearance as required by the court. Should the individual be found guilty, their presence is mandated for the imposition of the designated penalty. However, the constitution of India, under Article 21, enshrines the right to personal liberty and life, emphasizing that this fundamental right should not be curtailed unnecessarily if the accused’s presence can be assured through means other than arrest. This principle underscores importance of balancing interests of justice with protection of individual freedoms. Central to the determination of guilt or innocence in any criminal trial is burden of proof, encapsulated in maxim EiIncumbitProbatio, Qui Dicit, Non-QuiNegat which places the onus on the party making an assertion rather than on the one denying it. This presumption of innocence is pivotal in safeguarding the rights of the defendant throughout the judicial process. It mandates that the accused must be afforded a fair trial, free from undue suspicion and bias from the prosecution. However, the decision to grant or deny bail hinges on several crucial factors, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The potential for flight to avoid trial, tampering with evidence, or interfering with witnesses necessitates careful consideration by the judiciary. In such instances, the denial of bail serves to mitigate risks to public safety and the integrity of the legal process.