Bail, but still in jail

A large number of undertrials not being able to get out of prison despite being granted bail remains a matter of concern — 5,000 undertrials, according to one estimate. It’s one reason why jails are overcrowded and overwhelmingly populated by people from the underprivileged sections. Last year, the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions, asking courts to consider modifying the conditions of furnishing bonds and sureties. Preparing a report on the socioeconomic circumstances of such inmates, it was indicated, would help relax these conditions. The apex court has now again asked judges not to shut their eyes to the hard realities of life. Its observation could not be more explicit — to grant bail and thereafter impose excessive conditions is to take away with the left hand what is given with the right. A more humane approach has to be institutionalised.

That bail is the rule and refusal an exception has been forcefully reiterated by the Supreme Court in recent judgments. Bail, it held, should be granted if a case is made out for personal liberty even if the offence is one under the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act). The legislation, which punishes terror acts, has often been labelled draconian. Describing the right to speedy trial and liberty as sacrosanct, the apex court did not shy away from suggesting that trial courts and high courts were attempting to play safe while granting bail.

The justice system continues to be plagued by delays at every level. If ‘tareekh pe tareekh’ is a chronic flaw, so is the aspect of undertrials languishing in jails even after grant of bail. The lack of awareness and legal literacy adds to the distress.