Bail courts should not violate basic human rights of accused

No one can be convicted of any offence except through the due process of law after establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence he or she has been charged with. Therefore, it is but a natural corollary that no one can be punished till the trial is over “in accordance with law”. 

When a person is accused of an offence and the First Information Report is filed, the accused may be arrested as a preventive step to ensure that the accused is available for investigation and trial. The accused could seek anticipatory bail if he apprehends arrest. If arrested the accused moves the appropriate court for bail. 

The courts, while granting anticipatory bail or regular bail can impose conditions to secure the accused for further investigation and trial and also to ensure that the accused does not tamper with witnesses etc. Usually the courts granting such anticipatory bail or regular bail, imposes conditions such as directing the accused to stay at some specified place for a certain period, sign at periodic intervals at the police station or at the magistrate’s court within which jurisdiction the condition to reside is imposed etc. 

The criminal trial process is cumbersome and it is necessary that the courts dealing with the anticipatory or regular bails do not go into the merits of the case. It is essential that the bail court does  not deal with the factual allegations of the case as the bail courts have no substantive proof to come to any conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the case.  Life and liberty of any person cannot be taken for granted. It is the duty of the state to safeguard the rights of its citizens and not deprive them, except in consonance with law. While so, of late there is a tendency of the courts to put the cart before the horse and conclude the guilt of the accused at the bail stage. Directing the accused to remove ‘seema karuvelam’ trees/pour water for deer have been passed as conditions to be complied with while granting bail. The Madras High Court has rightly come down heavily against such practice of imposing unreasonable conditions which amount to subjecting the accused to punishment before being found guilty. Justice Devadoss calls it a human rights violation and says that the conditions are obnoxious, and rightly so. 

The tendency to overstep the law in their anxiety to demonstrate that law is not impotent and that the accused cannot go scot-free, courts are violating the basic human rights of those accused. In a country where private vengeance is rampant by abusing the process of law, it is essential that not one innocent person is punished by the overzealous, presiding officers of law. Equality of law and equal protection of law being the fundamental of all fundamental principles of our constitution, it is the need of the hour to administer justice as per law and not as per any notion of natural justice. 

To sum the entire debate, I quote from the order of Justice P Devadoss: “I am guided by law and also by my (judicial) conscience. I am not subscribing to the new found ideology of imposing such ‘odd’, ‘onerous’ and ‘obnoxious’ conditions in bail orders. The present spree or competition among the judges in our state to impose such bail conditions signals not the march of law, but an onslaught on human rights, human elements, and human sentiments. We are not for bread alone. Honour and human dignity are above all. Thus, imposing of odd conditions in bail orders is against law.”