Denial of bail as pre-trial deterrent violates justice: HC in drugs case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that denying bail solely as a pre-trial deterrent violates the core principles of justice and equity. Referring to the aphorism that ‘crime, not the individual, should be condemned’, Justice Anoop Chitkara has also asked the courts to balance the severity of past criminal records with the need for a fair trial, especially when the offence in question is “minor”.
“Although the legal system upholds the principle that crime, not the individual, should be condemned, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and the graver the criminal history, the slushier the puddles, and a recidivist often operates on precarious ground, where the weight of a significant criminal record creates an increasingly challenging terrain,” Justice Chitkara asserted.
The court, at the same time, added the courts were required not to allow past conduct overshadow the need for a fair trial process, where arrest was unwarranted, or bail inevitable due to the minor nature of the offence.
“Nonetheless, where the offence for which bail is sought is minor such that arrest is generally unwarranted, or bail would ordinarily be inevitable, the courts must not deny bail solely as a punitive measure intended to serve as a pre-trial deterrent. Such an approach contravenes the judiciary's obligation to uphold the foundational principles of justice and equity in bail proceedings,” Justice Chitkara asserted.
The ruling came on an anticipatory bail plea in a case where the accused was found in possession of a substance weighing less than the threshold categorised as a "small quantity" under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Justice Chitkara asserted the classification was indicative of the offence's lesser gravity. Such quantities fell under the magistrates’ jurisdiction. Yet the relief was denied to the accused-petitioner, based on her prior criminal antecedents, despite the minor nature of the quantity involved.
The court added pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. “Adjudicating a bail petition of an accused with a prior criminal record places a significant and exacting responsibility on the courts to exercise judicial discretion in a manner that is both reasoned and balanced to consider the countervailing impacts on the freedom of an accused and that of society and free from arbitrariness, as arbitrariness is antithetical to the rule of law,” Justice Chitkara asserted.
Allowing the plea, the court added the consideration of an accused person’s criminal history should as a natural corollary be confined to cases where convictions were secured, including those with suspended sentences, as well as pending FIRs where the petitioner is formally named as an accused. However, cases resulting in acquittals, discharges, quashed FIRs, withdrawn prosecutions or closure reports filed by investigative authorities must be excluded from such considerations.
