The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt.”
In the case of Vaman Narain Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It 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 mis- adventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence, viz, the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restrain, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have (See A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 1000).
In the case of Vaman Narain Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It 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 mis- adventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence, viz, the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restrain, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have (See A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 1000).
In the case of Vaman Narain Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It 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 mis- adventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence, viz, the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restrain, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have (See A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 1000).v
In the case of Ketan Suresh Pawar & Anr vs. Yuvraj Sudeepan Sawant & Anr. (2020) 16 SCC 752, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“In that background considering that the charge sheet had been filed and the other coaccused have been enlarged on bail, the High Court has considered it appropriate to grant the bail in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner herein contends that the allegations against the respondent No. 1 is of a serious nature, custody being prior to trial the same cannot be treated as one after conviction so as to deny the bail based only on the allegation though in appropriate cases the same is also to be kept in perspective. The allegations in any event would be gone into in the trial. Even if a supplementary charge sheet is required to be filed, the respondent No. 1 was available in custody from the date of his arrest till the grant of bail. That apart, the State/Investigating Agency has not made any grievance by challenging the order, contending that his custody is required for interrogation. Even if he is on bail, he shall certainly make himself available. In addition, it is seen that the respondent No. 1 was released on bail as far back as on 13.02.2019 and there is no material on record to indicate that as on today any of the conditions imposed while granting bail has been violated. Needless to mention that if the respondent No.1 violates the bail conditions, it will be open for the petitioner herein to approach the High Court in that regard.”
In the case of Ketan Suresh Pawar & Anr vs. Yuvraj Sudeepan Sawant & Anr. (2020) 16 SCC 752, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“In that background considering that the charge sheet had been filed and the other coaccused have been enlarged on bail, the High Court has considered it appropriate to grant the bail in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner herein contends that the allegations against the respondent No. 1 is of a serious nature, custody being prior to trial the same cannot be treated as one after conviction so as to deny the bail based only on the allegation though in appropriate cases the same is also to be kept in perspective. The allegations in any event would be gone into in the trial. Even if a supplementary charge sheet is required to be filed, the respondent No. 1 was available in custody from the date of his arrest till the grant of bail. That apart, the State/Investigating Agency has not made any grievance by challenging the order, contending that his custody is required for interrogation. Even if he is on bail, he shall certainly make himself available. In addition, it is seen that the respondent No. 1 was released on bail as far back as on 13.02.2019 and there is no material on record to indicate that as on today any of the conditions imposed while granting bail has been violated. Needless to mention that if the respondent No.1 violates the bail conditions, it will be open for the petitioner herein to approach the High Court in that regard.”
In the case of Ketan Suresh Pawar & Anr vs. Yuvraj Sudeepan Sawant & Anr. (2020) 16 SCC 752, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“In that background considering that the charge sheet had been filed and the other coaccused have been enlarged on bail, the High Court has considered it appropriate to grant the bail in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner herein contends that the allegations against the respondent No. 1 is of a serious nature, custody being prior to trial the same cannot be treated as one after conviction so as to deny the bail based only on the allegation though in appropriate cases the same is also to be kept in perspective. The allegations in any event would be gone into in the trial. Even if a supplementary charge sheet is required to be filed, the respondent No. 1 was available in custody from the date of his arrest till the grant of bail. That apart, the State/Investigating Agency has not made any grievance by challenging the order, contending that his custody is required for interrogation. Even if he is on bail, he shall certainly make himself available. In addition, it is seen that the respondent No. 1 was released on bail as far back as on 13.02.2019 and there is no material on record to indicate that as on today any of the conditions imposed while granting bail has been violated. Needless to mention that if the respondent No.1 violates the bail conditions, it will be open for the petitioner herein to approach the High Court in that regard.”
