Premium
This is an archive article published on January 17, 2010
Premium

Opinion Bail,not jail

In our criminal jurisprudence bail,not jail,is the general rule subject to recognised exceptions. The rationale is that a person who is arrested is not pronounced guilty....

January 17, 2010 02:03 AM IST First published on: Jan 17, 2010 at 02:03 AM IST

In our criminal jurisprudence bail,not jail,is the general rule subject to recognised exceptions. The rationale is that a person who is arrested is not pronounced guilty. He is presumed to be innocent and that presumption enures till his conviction. Presumption of innocence is not a fanciful technicality but a cardinal principle underlying all civilised legal systems. It is recognised in Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Therefore a person whose personal liberty is curtailed by arrest is entitled to bail. Legal provisions which altogether deny bail or provide that bail should not be granted for a long period raise constitutional problems. It is not realised that when a person is granted bail he has not got scot free nor has he been acquitted. Far from it. When granting or refusing bail the court does not determine the innocence or guilt of that person.

In a case sensationalised by media hype when bail is granted by court there is public outcry. It is overlooked that the approach of the court in matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment before trial. The court has to ensure the presence of the accused during trial and that the accused does not tamper with documents or pressurise potential witnesses or otherwise interfere with the ongoing investigations. To that end courts impose strict conditions when granting bail which if breached will lead the accused back in jail. Ugly facts of a case should not detract from the basic principles regarding grant of bail.

Lawyers and not actors

Advertisement

Counsel for former Haryana DGP S.P.S. Rathore and for Ruchika Girhotra’s father will forcefully present their respective cases and disentangle the web of lies and deceit in court as they are entitled to. However,their frequent appearances before the electronic media,justifying their clients’ respective stand is improper. Lawyers appearing in a pending case must not participate in discussion about the merits of the case and thereby encourage trial by media. Lawyers should not behave like actors. Apparently the lure of the mike and the attendant publicity is difficult to resist. The Bar Council of India should seriously look into this regrettable phenomenon.

Much ado about B-word

In our college days we often called an objectionable person a bloody bastard. It was not meant to cast doubts about the person’s paternity but was an expression of disgust,revulsion. Nobody went into a tizzy and life went on smoothly. When former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda recently hurled that expression at the Chief Minister of Karnataka BS Yeddyurappa,he perhaps went down memory lane to his school/college days and was so carried away that whilst he was entitled to mutter the B-word under his breath; he did it full blast in public. That was certainly improper. But when Deve Gowda realised his mistake and expressed regret in public the matter should have ended. However,for our politicians this was spicy stuff,too juicy to be ignored. Deve Gowda’s conduct was severely condemned and there were threats about instituting legal proceedings against him probably for libel. In a democratic country where political diatribe is common I doubt if B-word is per se actionable libel. Besides it would be unwise to add to the crushing burden of arrears by one more suit which would probably be decided after a decade. By that time Deve Gowda and Yeddyurappa would at best become footnotes in political history and people will have forgotten the incident.

The problem is that Deve Gowda soon forgets his public expression of regret and valiantly attempts to justify the B-word. Worse,he abuses the Advocate General of Karnataka who is representing the State in the Supreme Court and does not have nice words for counsel appearing for NICE. Well,well,well,we can surely make allowance for the aberrations of an old man who happened to become the Prime Minister of our country,remembering that old men forget. Now for Heaven’s sake let us draw a curtain on these political theatricals.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments