In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the foundational legal principle that 'bail is the rule, and jail is the exception,' particularly when higher courts order the arrest of an accused during appeals against acquittals or discharges. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding individual liberty and ensuring that the presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.
Understanding Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Section 390 of the CrPC empowers appellate courts to direct the arrest of an accused when an appeal is filed against an order of acquittal. Specifically, it states that if an appeal is presented under Section 417, the appellate court may issue a warrant directing that the accused be arrested and brought before it, and the court may commit the accused to prison pending the disposal of the appeal or admit the accused to bail. This provision ensures that an accused, whose acquittal is under challenge, remains within the judicial purview during the appellate process.
The Supreme Court's Stance on Bail During Appeals Against Acquittal
The Supreme Court emphasized that an acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence. Therefore, when an appellate court invokes Section 390 to arrest an accused during an appeal against acquittal, the default position should be to grant bail rather than commit the individual to prison. The Court observed that this approach aligns with the broader legal principle that favors bail over incarceration, especially when the accused has already been acquitted by a lower court.
Extension of the Principle to Revision Proceedings Against Discharge Orders
The Court extended this rationale to situations where discharge orders are challenged. In such cases, if a higher court exercises its power under Section 390, the individual should typically be granted bail. The Court noted that an order of discharge places the accused on an even higher pedestal than an acquittal, as it signifies that the charges were not substantiated enough to proceed to trial. Thus, the presumption of innocence is even more pronounced, warranting the granting of bail as the norm.
Implications for High Courts: Caution Against Staying Discharge Orders
The Supreme Court advised High Courts to exercise restraint when considering stays on discharge orders issued by trial courts. Such stays should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, recognizing that a discharge order reflects a judicial determination that the evidence does not support proceeding with a trial. This caution ensures that individuals are not unnecessarily deprived of their liberty based on unsubstantiated charges.
Case in Focus: Sudershan Singh Wazir's Appeal
The Supreme Court's judgment arose from appeals filed by Sikh leader Sudershan Singh Wazir, challenging the Delhi High Court's orders that stayed his discharge in a murder case and directed him to surrender. The case pertained to the 2021 murder of former National Conference MLC Trilochan Singh Wazir, in which Sudershan Singh Wazir, a former President of the Jammu and Kashmir State Gurdwara Parbandhak Board, was one of the accused. The Supreme Court's decision to allow the appeals reinforced the principle that bail should be the norm, even when higher courts order the arrest of an accused while considering challenges to acquittals or discharges.
Reaffirming the Presumption of Innocence
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the presumption of innocence, a fundamental tenet of criminal law. By emphasizing that bail should be the default position when an accused's acquittal or discharge is under appeal, the Supreme Court ensures that individuals are not unjustly deprived of their liberty. This approach aligns with the broader principle that the criminal justice system must balance the interests of justice with the rights of individuals, ensuring that the state's power to detain is exercised judiciously and sparingly.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 390 of the CrPC reinforces the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. By advocating for bail as the default position during appeals against acquittals or discharges, the Court upholds the presumption of innocence and safeguards individual liberty. This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring that the criminal justice system remains fair, just, and protective of fundamental rights.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.