The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant directive emphasizing that High Courts should refrain from routinely granting interim bail to the same accused individuals. Instead, courts should either grant regular bail or deny bail altogether, reserving interim bail for exceptional circumstances. This pronouncement came while deliberating on a case involving an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, who had been granted interim bail multiple times by the High Court of Odisha despite having spent approximately three years in custody.
The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, highlighted that while interim bail might be necessary in certain situations to address specific contingencies, it should not become a standard practice. The Court observed that the repeated granting of interim bail undermines the purpose of bail proceedings and can lead to inconsistencies in the judicial process. Such practices not only burden the judiciary with repetitive applications but also create uncertainty for the accused and the prosecution.
In the specific case under consideration, the Supreme Court noted that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner warranted the granting of regular bail. Consequently, the Court directed the release of the accused on bail, subject to terms and conditions to be determined by the appropriate court. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to upholding the right to liberty while ensuring that judicial processes are not misused.
The apex court's observations are rooted in the broader principle that bail decisions should be clear and conclusive. Granting interim bail repeatedly without arriving at a final decision on regular bail can lead to a cycle of uncertainty and legal ambiguity. The Court emphasized that such practices should be exceptions rather than the norm, reserved for situations where immediate relief is necessary due to unforeseen circumstances.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court's directive serves as a reminder to lower courts about the importance of consistency and finality in bail decisions. By discouraging the habitual granting of interim bail, the Court aims to streamline judicial processes and reduce unnecessary litigation. This approach not only conserves judicial resources but also provides clarity and stability to all parties involved in criminal proceedings.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's guidance seeks to reinforce the integrity of the bail system by ensuring that interim bail is granted judiciously and sparingly. High Courts are urged to make definitive decisions regarding bail applications, thereby promoting efficiency and fairness in the judicial process. This directive is a step towards safeguarding the rights of the accused while maintaining the sanctity of legal procedures.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.