In the realm of law and order, the delicate balance between bail and jail is often a contentious issue. While the courts uphold the principle of ‚bail as the rule,‘ authorities sometimes find ways to skirt legal boundaries and sidestep due process. This practice has come under scrutiny as investigative agencies continue to override court directives through repetitive filing of cases, opening decades-old cases overnight, and booking individuals under stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, and preventive detention legislations like the National Security Act and Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.
Recently, in the case of Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India, the apex court reiterated key prepositions for considering bail pleas of accused individuals. These prepositions include the need for materials to show the complicity of the accused in the offense, the importance of analyzing the evidence as a whole, and the presumption of the contents of documents relied upon by the prosecution as true. The court emphasized the need for ‚reasonable grounds‘ to believe that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true, highlighting the importance of a fair and transparent investigative process.
In a significant ruling, the court granted bail to Jalaluddin, who was accused by the NIA of renting out his property to a member of the Popular Front of India for their activities. The court found that there was no specific material to show that Jalaluddin advocated, abetted, or incited any unlawful activities, and that there was no evidence of his affiliation with a terrorist gang. The court’s decision underscored the principle that ‚bail is the rule and jail is an exception,‘ emphasizing the importance of upholding the rights of the accused.
However, in some cases, authorities have circumvented due process and subverted judicial outcomes. For instance, in the case of Kashmiri Lawyer Zahid Ali, the police rearrested him in a separate UAPA case linked to the 2019 prison riots incident, despite the Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashing four detention orders against him. The court criticized the police and magistrate for circumventing previous court orders and ordered the state to pay compensation to Ali, highlighting the need for accountability and adherence to legal procedures.
Similarly, in the case of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, the CBI arrested him on charges related to alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy, even as the ED had already registered a case against him. Despite getting interim bail in the ED case, Kejriwal remained behind bars due to the case registered by the CBI. His arrest by the CBI was seen as an ‚insurance arrest‘ to prevent his release, raising concerns about the misuse of legal processes for political motives.
Overall, the issue of authorities skirting legal boundaries between bail and jail underscores the importance of upholding due process, transparency, and fairness in the criminal justice system. While bail is a fundamental right enshrined in the law, it is essential to ensure that it is granted based on reasonable grounds and in accordance with the principles of justice and equity. By navigating loopholes and sidestepping due process, authorities risk eroding the trust and confidence in the legal system, undermining the very principles it seeks to uphold.