INTRODUCTION

Meaning of the word “Bail”

Bail is a generic term used to mean judicial release from custodia legis. The concept of bail can traced back to 399 BC, when Plato tried to create a bond for the release of Socrates. The modern bail system evolved from a series of laws originating in the middle ages in England.

Law Lexicon has defined it as, security for appearance of the accused person on giving which he is released pending trial or investigation.

Black’s Law Dictionary contemplates that bail is to “procure the release of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he shall appear at the time and place designated and submit himself to the jurisdiction and judgement of the court.”

The Law of Bail has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime, and on the other, the fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence, i.e., the presumption of innocence of accused till he is found guilty. The Legislature in the wisdom has given some precise directions for granting, or not granting bail. Where the legislature allows discretion in the grant of bail, the discretion has to be exercised according to the guidelines provided by law; in addition the courts have evolved certain norms for the proper exercise of such discretion. The release on bail is crucial to the accused as the consequences would mean that though he is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, he would be subjected to the psychological and physical deprivations of jail life. The jailed accused is loses his job and is prevented from contributing effectively to the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family.1

1 R.V.Kelkar’s “Criminal Procedure”, Fourth Edition, 2007.

1

THE LEGAL POSITION IN INDIA

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in sections 436 to 450 has laid down the norms for granting of bail and provisions relating to security and bonds in criminal cases. The Indian Penal Code has classified all offences as bailable or non-bailable according to the nature and gravity of offence, Section 2(a) specifies that “bailable offence” means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force and “non bailable” means any other offence. Thus no test or criterion is laid down however, it can be said generally that all serious offences punishable with imprisonment for three years or more, have been considered as non bailable offences.2

In non bailable cases, accused may be released on bail but no bail shall be granted where the accused appears on reasonable grounds to be guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life. However, this rule does not apply to: a) persons below sixteen years of age b).Women and c).Sick or Infirm persons and the Sessions Court and the High Court have been given the discretion to grant bail in such cases. As soon as the reason for detention ceases the accused should be released on bail or on his own recognizance. When released on bail the order with reasons shall be in writing and as soon as bail bond is executed, the accused is entitled to be released from custody.3

Even as per the Law Commission the broad principles are that, bail is a matter of right if the offence is bailable4, a matter of discretion is the offence is not bailable and it shall not be granted in where the accused appears on reasonable grounds to be guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life as stated above.5

As per Supreme Court, bail covers both release on one’s own bond with or without sureties and the questions regarding the amount of every bond with a surety, executed under the Chapter XXXIII of the Code shall depend on variables, such as:6

- ability of the accused to give bail, - nature of offense, - penalty for the offense charged, - character and reputation of the accused, - health of the accused, - character and strength of the evidence, - probability of the accused appearing at trial,

2 R.V.Kelkar’s “Criminal Procedure”, Fourth Edition, 2007.3 “The Code of Criminal Procedure” Rattanlal and Dhirajlal, 17th edition, reprint 2007.4 As per Section 436, Code of Criminal Procedue, 1973.5 Law Commission of India, 41st Report on Code of Criminal Procedure, Vol. 1,311.6 Article - “Indian System of Bail- Anti Poor” by Urvashi Saikumar, Amity Law School.

2

- forfeiture of other bonds, and whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested.That the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases should also be considered.

The amount of bond should be an individualised decision, fixed mechanically according to the schedule keyed to the nature of charge.7 The High Court or Sessions Court may direct that the bail required by a police officer or magistrate be reduced.8

However it is important to note that, since bail includes both release on one’s own bond without sureties i.e. personal recognizance or with surety, the Courts must be liberal in releasing the poor, young or infirm persons and women on their own personal recognizance, putting reasonable conditions if necessary.9

7 R.V.Kelkar’s “Criminal Procedure”, Fourth Edition, 2007.8 Section 440, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.9 “Criminal Law and Criminology” by A.N. Chaturvedi, 2003.

3

RIGHT TO GET BAIL

The right to bail is concommittant of the accusatorial system which favors a bail system that ordinarily enables a person to stay out of jail until a trial has found him/her guilty.10

As defined in the case, Suprintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affais v. amiya Kumar Ray Choudhary, 11 “the right to bail, is the right to be released from jail in criminal cases after furnishing sufficient security and bond and this has been recognized in every civilized society as a fundamental aspect of human right”

RIGHT TO BAIL AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

The PREAMBLE - The Preamble to the constitution emphasizes that India is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and that is being established by the people of India with a view to achieve “Justice, social, economic and political” for all citizens. The ideal in the preamble is reinforced in the Directive Principles of State Policy. Thus the state has directed to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order based on social economic and political justice. For example the state is directed to minimize inequalities in income and eliminate the inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only amongst individuals bit also among groups reading in different areas or engaged in different vocation, it also has the duty to provide opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and so on.12

ARTICLE 21 – It reads as, “Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The release on bail is provided for with the object of protecting the right to life and liberty of the citizens guaranteed under article 21. If granted bail without conditions, the accused has the right to move about freely throughout the territory of India as under article 1913 Article 21 of the Constitution is said to enshrine the most important human rights in criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has taken the view that this Article merely embodied a facet of the Diceyian concept of the rule of law that no one can deprived of his life and personal liberty by the executive action unsupported

10 “Right to Bail as a Constitutional Right” By Vidhan Maheshwari, National Law Institute University, Bhopal11(1974) 78 Cal. W.N. 320, 325. 12 “Law and the poor: Some Recent Developments in India” by M.P.Jain13 “Code of Criminal Procedure” Dr. S.R. Myneni, 2004 Edition.

4

by law. If there was a law which provided some sort of procedure, it was enough to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty.14

The case, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India15 marked a watershed in the history of constitutional law and Article 21 assumed a new dimension wherein the Supreme Court for the first time took the view that Article 21 affords protection also against legislation (and not just executive action) and no law can deprive a person of his/her life or personal liberty unless it prescribes a procedure which is reasonable, fair and just it would be for the court to determine whether the procedure is reasonable, fair and just ; if not, it would be struck down as invalid. Bhagwati, J. said that the “procedure under article 21 must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary fanciful or oppressive, otherwise it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of article 21 would not be satisfied”

The new judicial approach has manifested itself in several propositions laid down by the court in relation to the administration of criminal justice. One proposition is that a procedure cannot be “reasonable, fair or just unless it ensures a speedy trial for determination of guilt of such person” and that speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty as per article 21. Thus the procedure under which a large number of people are behind bar for a long time cannot be regarded as “reasonable just and fair so as to be in conformity with Article 21of the constitution”16

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration,17 Supreme court was faced with an important question of issuing a habeas corpus writ on the basis of a letter addressed to one of the judges of the court by one of the fellow convicts, Sunil Batra complaining of brutal assault by a head warder on another person, Prem Chand. Since freedom was at stake and forms were forsaken and the letter was metamorphosed into a habeas corpus proceeding and was judicially charged with eclectic creativity. Being convicted of the allegation the court issued a writ, directing the authorities that the prisoner Prem Chand should not be subjected to physical manhandling by any jail officer, that the painful and shameful torture he had been subjected to, a blot on governments claim to protect human rights, shall be ended and he shall be given proper medical care and treatment.

ARTICLE 39A - It reads as: “Equal justice and free legal aid The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or

14 “Right to Bail as a Constitutional Right” By Vidhan Maheshwari, National Law Institute University, Bhopal15 AIR 1978 SC 59716 “Law and the poor: Some Recent Developments in India” by M.P.Jain17 AIR 1980 SC 1579

5

schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.”

The right to free legal assistance is an essential element of any reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Article 21, it is a constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so require, provided of course the accused person does not object to the provision of such lawyer.18

In Khatri v. State of Bihar,19 court emphasized that obligation to provide free legal aid to the poor accused arises not only when the trial begins but also when he is for the first time produces before a magistrate because it is at this stage that the accused gets his first opportunity to apply for bail and obtain his release as also he to resist remand of police or jail custody thus the accused needs competent legal advice and representation at that stage. Moreover it would be a mockery of legal aid if it were left to the poor, ignorant and illiterate accused to ask for free legal services. “legal aid would become a paper promise and would fail in its purpose” the trial judge is therefore obligated to inform the accused that if he is unable to engage a lawyer on account of poverty and indigence, he is entitled to obtain free legal services at the cost of the state.

18 “Right to Bail as a Constitutional Right” By Vidhan Maheshwari, National Law Institute University, Bhopal19 AIR 1981 SC 928

6

ABUSE OF BAIL JUSTICE SYSTEM, LAW AND POOR

Poverty is not only a condition of having relatively low incomes.  Going beyond income poverty, the lack of a whole host of rights and capabilities is responsible for the impoverishment of the lives of many people.20 The majority of the population in rural India, lives in the thrall of poverty and destitution, and don't even have the money to earn one square meal a day. Therefore the poor are unable to furnish bail, even though the amount fixed by the magistrate is not so high, that is the poor accused defaults in furnishing bail even for a small amount. For example, Fragmentation of land holdings is a common phenomenon in rural India. A family consisting of around 8 to 10 members depends on a small piece of land for their subsistence, which also is a reason for disguised unemployment. When one of the members of such a family gets charged with an offence, the only way they can secure his release and paying the bail is by either selling off the land or giving it on mortgage. This would further push them more into the jaws of poverty.21

Most of the undertrials languish in jail instead of being out on bail. Yet, they are still expected to serve a surety even though they have been charged with a bailable offence where the accused is entitled to secure bail as a matter of right. As a result, a poor man languishes behind bars, subject to the atrocities of the jail authorities rubbing shoulders with hardened criminals and effectively being treated as a convict. To substantiate the above, it can be stated that According to the 78th report of the Law Commission as on April 1, 1977, of a total prison population of 1,84,169, as many as 1,01,083 (roughly 55%) were under-trials. For specific jails, some other reports show: Secunderabad Central Jail- 80 per cent under-trials; Surat-78 per cent under-trials; Assam, Tripura and Meghalaya-66 per cent under-trials.22

Courts mechanically, and as a matter of course, insist that the accused should produce sureties who will stand bail for him and these sureties must again establish their solvency to be able to pay up the amount of the bail. Moreover, the bail fixed by the Courts in several cases is unreasonably excessive, which serves as a huge deterrent to the poor. They find it extremely hard to obtain a bail and consequently end up languishing in the prisons. So, although they are ‘presumed innocent’ they are subject to the psychological and physical privations of jail life. This is one of the ways in which the poor find the legal and judicial system oppressive and heavily weighted against them.

20 “Interdependence in Overcoming Injustice(s) of Poverty: Some Preliminary Observations” by R. Sudarshan.21 Article - “Indian System of Bail- Anti Poor” by Urvashi Saikumar, Amity Law School.22 Article - “Indian System of Bail- Anti Poor” by Urvashi Saikumar, Amity Law School.

7

The practice of fixing the amount of bail with reference to the nature of the charge without taking into account relevant factors, such as the individual financial circumstances of the accused and the probability of his fleeing before trial is harsh and oppressive and as observed before, discriminates against the poor. The risk of monetary loss is not the only deterrent against fleeing from justice, but there are other factors which act as equal deterrents. If the Court is satisfied after taking into account on the basis of the information placed before it, that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, it can safely release the accused on his personal bond but a large section of the society is simply disarticulated, that is, it is not in a position to voice its claims and obtain the apt redress.23

The Criminal Justice system in the country is cumbersome, oppressive and cumulatively disastrous. The poor can never reach the temple of justice because of heavy cost of its access and the mystique of legal ethos. The hierarchy of courts, with appeals after appeals puts legal justice beyond reach of the poor. Making the legal process costlier is an indirect denial of justice to the people, and this hits hard on the lowest of the low in society.24

Some of the probable Reasons are, that our country is influenced by Common Law countries which are organized as autonomous, self-governing independent institutions, and the idea that they are part of a state, with a programmatic agenda for development and poverty eradication, does not come naturally to most judges and lawyers. Secondly, judges may be very good at sifting the merits of adversarial arguments and doing justice, but they are not necessarily good managers.  They tend to resist attempts to hand over the management and administration of courts to people who are more professionally trained to manage because they believe that doing that would compromise the quality of justice on the part of courts. Thirdly, Judges in the country have taken the teleology of the constitution to a point where they have given themselves the power to set aside not only statutes and regulations that are inconsistent with the constitution, but also set aside duly enacted amendments to the constitution.25

To sum up, a number of political, economic, and social steps have been taken since the independence with a view to ameliorate the conditions of poor. A host of laws have been enacted with this objective in view i.e. eradication of poverty but effective implementation of these laws has been the crux of the problem, there has always been a problem of the poor in getting justice. The poor being illiterate and without resources cannot take advantage of whatever remedies the law provides to them for the indication of their rights.

23 “The Apathy of the Indian Legal System: Securing Access to Justice” by Ketan Mukhija,200524 “The Poor as Victims of Uses and Abuses of Criminal Law and Process” by K.D. Gaur25 “The Apathy of the Indian Legal System: Securing Access to Justice” by Ketan Mukhija,2005

8

The supreme court has sought to take a cognizance of the problem of poverty and through a series of notable decisions and has strived to three significant things 1). Facilitate access to justice o the poor by demolishing certain traditional common law procedural obstacles 2). Interpret the constitutional provisions more favorably to the poor so that the inert provisions become lively and 3). Compel administration to enforce the law favoring the poor more effectively.26

In Baba Singh v. State of UP,27 Krishna Iyer J observed that the issue is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to socially sensitive judicial process”

26 “Law and the poor: Some Recent Developments in India” by M.P.Jain27 AIR 1978 SC 527

9

CASE LAWS

1. The fact that under trials formed 80 percent of Bihar’s prison population, their period of imprisonment ranging from a few months to ten years; some cases wherein the period of imprisonment of the under trials exceeded the period of imprisonment prescribed for the offences they were charged with- these appalling outrages were brought before the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar28. Justice Bhagwati found that these unfortunate under trials languishing in jail were in such a position presumably because no action application for bail had been made on their behalf either because they were not aware of their right to obtain release on bail or on account of their poverty they were unable to furnish bail.

Following Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India29, he read into fair procedure envisaged by Article 21 the right of speedy trial and sublimated the bail process to the problems of the destitute. He thus ordered the release of persons whose period of imprisonment had exceeded the period of imprisonment for their offences. He brought into focus the failure of the magistrates to respect section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure which entitles an undertrial to be released from prison on expiry of 60 days or 90 days as the case may be.

The court said that “detention was clearly illegal and in violation of their fundamental right guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution of India.” The present law of bail thus operates on what has been described as a property oriented approach. Thus the need for a comprehensive and dynamic legal service programme was left in order to revitalize the bail system and make it equitably responsive to needs of poor prisoners and not just the rich. In the same case the hon’ble court also observed that it is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure to a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the courts process that he should have legal services available to him.

2. The travails of illegal detainees languishing in prisons, who were uniformed, or too poor to avail of, their right bail under section 167 Cr.P.C. was further brought to light in letters written to justice Bhagwati by the Hazaribagh Free Legal Aid Committee in Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar30. In this case the illegal detention of about sixteen prisoners was in question and The court recognized the inequitable operation of the law and condemned it- “The rule of law does not exist merely for those who have the means to fight for their rights and very often for perpetuation of status quo… but it exist also for the poor and the downtrodden… and it is solemn duty of the court to protect and uphold the basic human rights of the weaker section of the society.”

28 AIR 1979 SC 136029 AIR 1978 SC 59730(1982) 2 SCC 583.

10

3. State of Rajasthan v Balchand,31 the accused was convicted by the trial court. When he went on appeal the High Court, it acquitted him. The State went on appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution through a special leave petition. The accused was directed to surrender by the court. He then filed for bail. It was then for the first time that Justice Krishna Iyer raised his voice against this unfair system of bail administration. He said that though while the system of pecuniary bail has a tradition behind it, a time for rethinking has come. It may well be that in most cases an undertaking would serve the purpose.

4. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India32 , Justice Krishna Iyer once again spoke against the unfair system of bail that was prevailing in India. No definition of bail has been given in the code, although the offences are classified as bailable and non-bailable. Further Justice P.N.Bhagwati also spoke about how unfair and discriminatory the bail system is when looked at from the economic criteria of a person this discrimination arises even if the amount of bail fixed by the magistrates isn't high for some, but a large majority of those who are brought before the courts in criminal cases are so poor that they would find it difficult to furnish bail even if it's a small amount.

5. In Moti Ram and Ors. v State of M.P33, the accused who was a poor mason was convicted. The apex court had passed a sketchy order, referring it to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to enlarge him on bail, without making any specifications as to sureties, bonds etc. The CJM assumed full authority on the matter and fixed Rs. 10,000 as surety and bond and further refused to allow his brother to become a surety as his property was in the adjoining village. MR went on appeal once more to the apex court and Justice Krishna Iyer condemned the act of the CJM, and said that the judges should be more inclined towards bail and not jail. The following observation was made, “we leave it to the parliament to consider whether in our socialist republic, with social justice as its hallmark, monetary superstition, not other relevant considerations like family ties, roots in community, membership of stable organisations, should prevail over bail bonds to ensure that the bailee does not flee justice. The best guarantee of presence in the court is the reach of law, not monetary tag. A parting thought if the indigents are nit to be betrayed by law including bail law, re-writing of many processual laws is an urgent desideratum”

31 AIR 1977 SC 244732 AIR 1978 SC 59733 AIR 1978 SC 1594

11

THE WAY FORWARD

In Bal Chand v State of MP34 Court Observed that “rethinking has to be done now on the subject of demanding bail which has got set deeply as a tradition of our legal system”

The Report of Expert Committee and Legal Aid Processual Justice to the People, May 1973 quoted in Moti Ram Case:35

“a liberal policy of conditional release without monetary sureties or financial security and release on one’s own recognizance with punishment provided for violation would reform the bail system and would help the poorer sections of the society to get equal justice under law. Under conditional release the accused may either be entrusted to his relatives or any other person. To require a poor accused to provide for bail is to compel him to stay in custody and to unable him to make his defense.”

Keeping the above in mind, the following are a few suggestions which would help strengthen the Bail Justice System in the country:

1. Empowerment of Panchayati System - It is thought that from the various schemes the government operates for rural employment, loans to farmers etc, a portion of the funds which it transfers to the panchayat for developmental work of the same should be set aside and kept to meet the bail amount for undertrials belonging to the particular panchayat / block. The utilization of this fund would be in the hands of the elected leaders of the society with the representative of district collector / district magistrate being a part of the system. This would, go a long way in securing freedom for scores of undertrials who would then be able to contribute to society thereby playing an important role and forming part of the national mainstream. Such a scenario will have the effect of reducing the burden of over-crowding in jail.36

2. Setting up of Seperate Jails - The setting up of separate jails, or at any rate isolating undertrials from convicts, would prevent hardened criminals from exercising their deleterious influence over undertrials. Such segregation would also change the attitude of jail authorities and society at large towards under trials.

3. Reformatice actions - The under trials who have been charged with petty crimes can further be put in reformative homes instead and asked to do community service till the time they are released on bail. Elementary education facilities must be granted to those under trials who are uneducated and illiterate.

4. Knowledge and Organisation - Empowerment of the poor through both knowledge and organization brings in the added benefit of assertiveness and confidence in their dealings with public officials.

34 AIR 1977 SC 36635 “Criminal Law and Criminology” by A.N. Chaturvedi, 200336 Article - “Indian System of Bail- Anti Poor” by Urvashi Saikumar, Amity Law School.

12

5. Collective action - Helping the poor to organize themselves for collective action against injustice is essential to foster concrete action that could reverse the prevalent perception that the system is rigged against their interests and that it is hopeless to seek justice. When the weak work together as a collective group to confront those responsible for perpetrating injustices they have a better chance of overcoming structural imbalances in the distribution of power. And the very process of organizing collective action can diminish the degree of individual helplessness, and create the foundations for establishing durable organizations that can safeguard the interests of the poor.37

6. Role of Judges - Judges are required in this context to protect those who are most vulnerable from the pressures of those who are more powerful, especially the State. The judges should take the lead in setting up multidisciplinary research projects taking up issues such as to evaluate bail criteria, to develop well-thought-out policies about their use, and to examine the effects of granting bail with conditions.

7. Role of Government - Governments must ensure adequate access to justice through institutions, so that citizens can enjoy their basic human rights. In order for this to be achieved, existing laws should be reformed so that the necessary institutions and legal infrastructure could be put in place. The governments should improve legal aid programmes so that persons who felt aggrieved about the violation of their rights could have legal representation to assist them in vindicating their claims

8. Adoption of Principles – adoption of principles such as, Article 9(3) of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which lays down that persons awaiting trial should be released subject to guarantees to appear for trial, Article 10 of the ICCPR directs that people deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect. Article 10(3) lays down that the penitentiary system shall not compromise treatment of prisoners, the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture as any Act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or intimidating or coercing him or a third person; or for any other reason based on any discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in public capacity. Article 4 calls for making torture an offence under domestic law, shall definitely and

37 “The Apathy of the Indian Legal System: Securing Access to Justice” by Ketan Mukhija,2005

13

unmistakably lead in the building up of a legal regime that is more litigant friendly and efficient.38

9. Legal aid plans- should ensure that all duty counsel who represent people at the hearings have experience in the field of criminal law and meet minimum standards for adequate performance. The practice of authorities to deny legal representation to low-income people accused of minor criminal offences that do not normally bring sentences of imprisonment must be firmly curbed. The states ought to provide sufficient and ongoing funding to services in remote areas, bail support services, treatment programs, half-way houses and other services in order to provide equal treatment to low-income people in the criminal justice system and to maximise the chance that ex-offenders will stay out of the justice system in the future

10. Public Interest Litigations 39 – Article 32 provides a guaranteed, quick and summary remedy for enforcing the Fundamental Rights because a person can go straight to the Supreme Court without having to undergo the dilatory process of proceeding from the lower court to the higher court as he has to do in ordinary litigation the court enjoys broad discretion in the matter of framing writs to suit the exigencies of the particular case and it would no throw out the application of the petitioner simply on the ground that the proper writ or direction has not been prayed for.Article 226, gives High Court to issue a writ, order, or direction for the enforcement of a fundamental right or for any other purpose i.e. cognizance can be taken for a matter other than a fundamental right.

CONCLUSION

To conclude the above, it can be safely said that though the courts in some cases have tried to intervene and also have laid down certain guidelines to be followed but

38 “The Apathy of the Indian Legal System: Securing Access to Justice” by Ketan Mukhija,200539 “Law and the poor: Some Recent Developments in India” by M.P.Jain

14

unfortunately nothing has been done about it. There is also a strong need felt for a complete review of the bail system keeping in mind the socio-economic condition of the majority of our population. While granting bail the court must also look at the socio-economic plight of the accused and must also have a compassionate attitude towards them. A proper scrutiny may be done to determine whether the accused has his roots in the community which would deter him from fleeing from the court.

Restructuring the justice system, streamlining the justicing process, reorienting the social perspective of justice, re-educating the prosecution and judiciary are important aspects of criminal jurisprudence. The common man will never get justice unless the tempo of disposal not only in the courts but also in the secretariat and the administrative tribunal speed up. Tinkering is insufficient, engineering is essential. Law cannot be an instrument of maintaining social order but must also be ameliorative to remove pain and suffering from the society.

It is thought that from the various schemes the government operates for rural employment, loans to farmers etc, a portion of the funds which it transfers to the panchayat for developmental work of the same should be set aside and kept to meet the bail amount for undertrials belonging to the particular panchayat / block. The utilization of this fund would be in the hands of the elected leaders of the society with the representative of district collector / district magistrate being a part of the system. This would, go a long way in securing freedom for scores of undertrials who would then be able to contribute to society thereby playing an important role and forming part of the national mainstream. Such a scenario will have the effect of reducing the burden of over-crowding in jail. The setting up of separate jails, or at any rate isolating undertrials from convicts, would prevent hardened criminals from exercising their deleterious influence over undertrials. Such segregation would also change the attitude of jail authorities and society at large towards under trials.

The under trials who have been charged with petty crimes can further be put in reformative homes instead and asked to do community service till the time they are released on bail. Elementary education facilities must be granted to those under trials who are uneducated and illiterate. Thus, I feel that the benefit of bail should not only be in the hands of a few, but, should be available to the masses including those who do not have the financial capacity to afford it

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. R.V.Kelkar’s “Criminal Procedure”, Fourth Edition, 2007.

2. “The Code of Criminal Procedure” Rattanlal and Dhirajlal, 17th edition, reprint 2007.

3. Law Commission of India, 41st Report on Code of Criminal Procedure, Vol. 1,311.

4. Article - “Indian System of Bail- Anti Poor” by Urvashi Saikumar, Amity Law School.

5. “Criminal Law and Criminology” by A.N. Chaturvedi, 2003.

6. “Right to Bail as a Constitutional Right” By Vidhan Maheshwari, National Law Institute University, BhopaL

7. ‘Law and the poor: Some Recent Developments in India” by M.P.Jain

8. “Code of Criminal Procedure” Dr. S.R. Myneni, 2004 Edition.

9. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Thirty Second Edn., Central Law Agency, Allahabad.

10. Article - “Indian System of Bail- Anti Poor” by Urvashi Saikumar, Amity Law School.

11. “The Poor as Victims of Uses and Abuses of Criminal Law and Process” by K.D. Gaur

16