JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SEEDLING SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

Project on

BAIL AND RIGHT TO BAIL (INCLUDING BAILABLE AND NON BAILABLE

OFFENCES)

Submitted to: Submitted By: Akshar Haritwal

B.A. LL.B
V Semester
Index

Bail
1. Introduction
2. Meaning of Bail
3. History of Bail
a. Evolution in England
b. Evolution in America

4. The Legal Position in India

5. Judicial Trend
6. Conclusion

Right to Bail

1. Introduction

2. Why Bail?

3. Meaning of Bail

4. Meaning of Bail in India

5. Bailable offence

6. Non Bailable Offence

7. Granting of Bail with conditions

8. Cancellation of bail

9. Liberty

10. Right to bail and article 21's right to personal

 11. Right to bail and right to free legal aid : Articles 21 and 22 read with Article

39A
12. Conclusion

Biblography
BAIL
INTRODUCTION

Objectively analyzed the criminal jurisprudence adopted by India is a mere

reflection of the Victorian legacy left behind by the Britishers. The passage of time
has only seen a few amendments once in a while to satisfy pressure groups and
vote banks. Probably no thought has been given whether these legislations, which
have existed for almost seven decades, have taken into account the plight and the
socio-economic conditions of 70% of the population of this country which lives in
utter poverty. India being a poverty stricken developing country needed anything
but a blind copy of the legislations prevalent in developed western countries.

The concept of bail, which is an integral part of the criminal jurisprudence, also
suffers from the above stated drawbacks. Bail is broadly used to refer to the release
of a person charged with an offence, on his providing a security that will ensure his
presence before the court or any other authority whenever required.

Traditionally, bail is some form of property deposited or pledged to a court to

persuade it to release a suspect from jail, on the understanding that the suspect will
return for trial or forfeit the bail (and possibly be brought up on charges of the
crime of failure to appear). In some cases bail money may be returned at the end of
the trial, if all court appearances are made, regardless of whether the person is
found guilty or not guilty of the crime accused. If a bondsman is used and a surety
bond has been obtained, the fee for that bond is the fee for the insurance policy
purchased and is not refundable.
In some countries granting bail is common. Even in such countries, however, bail
may not be offered by some courts under some circumstances; for instance, if the
accused is considered likely not to appear for trial regardless of bail. Legislatures
may also set out certain crimes to be not bailable, such as capital crimes.

MEANING OF BAIL

Bail, in law, means procurement of release from prison of a person awaiting trial or
an appeal, by the deposit of security to ensure his submission at the required time
to legal authority. The monetary value of the security, known also as the bail, or,
more accurately, the bail bond, is set by the court having jurisdiction over the
prisoner. The security may be cash, the papers giving title to property, or the bond
of private persons of means or of a professional bondsman or bonding company.
Failure of the person released on bail to surrender himself at the appointed time
results in forfeiture of the security. The law lexicon1 defines bail as the security for
the appearance of the accused person on which he is released pending trial or
investigation.

Courts have greater discretion to grant or deny bail in the case of persons under
criminal arrest, e.g., it is usually refused when the accused is charged with
homicide.

What is contemplated by bail is to "procure the release of a person from legal

custody, by undertaking that he/she shall appear at the time and place designated
and submit him/herself to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court."2

1
Law lexicon by Ramanth Iyer, (3rd ed).
2
Black's Law Dictionary 177 (4th ed.)
A reading of the above definition make it evident that money need not be a
concomitant of the bail system. As already discussed above, the majority of the
population in rural India, lives in the thrall of poverty and destitution, and don't
even have the money to earn one square meal a day. Yet, they are still expected to
serve a surety even though they have been charged with a bailable offence where
the accused is entitled to secure bail as a matter of right. As a result, a poor man
languishes behind bars, subject to the atrocities of the jail authorities rubbing
shoulders with hardened criminals and effectively being treated as a convict.

HISTORY OF BAIL

The concept of bail can traced back to 399 BC, when Plato tried to create a bond
for the release of Socrates. The modern bail system evolved from a series of laws
originating in the middle ages in England.

Evolution in England

There existed a concept of circuit courts during the medieval times in Britain.
Judges used to periodically go? On circuit? To various parts of the country to
decide cases. The terms Sessions and Quarter Sessions are thus derived from the
intervals at which such courts were held. In the meanwhile, the under trials were
kept in prison awaiting their trials. These prisoners were kept in very unhygienic
and inhumane conditions this was caused the spread of a lot of diseases. This
agitated the under trials, who were hence separated from the accused. This led to
their release on their securing a surety, so that it was ensured that the person would
appear on the appointed date for hearing. If he did not appear then his surety was
held liable and was made to face trial. Slowly the concept of monetary bail came
into existence and the said under trials was asked to give a monetary bond, which
was liable to get forfeited on non-appearance.

In The Magna Carta, in 1215, the first step was taken in granting rights to citizens.
It said that no man could be taken or imprisoned without being judged by his peers
or the law of the land.

Then in 1275, the Statute of Westminster was enacted which divided crimes as
bailable and non bailable. It also determined which judges and officials could make
decisions on bail.

In 1677, the Habeas Corpus Act was added to the Right Of Petition of 1628, which
gave the right to the defendant the right to be told of the charges against him, the
right to know if the charges against him were bailable or not. The Habeas Corpus
Act, 1679 states, "A Magistrate shall discharge prisoners from their Imprisonment
taking their Recognizance, with one or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum
according to the Magistrate's discretion, unless it shall appear that the Party is
committed for such Matter offenses for which by law the Prisoner is not bailable."

In 1689 came The English Bill Of Rights, which provided safeguards against
judges setting bail too high. It stated that "excessive bail hath been required of
persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the
liberty of the subjects. Excessive bail ought not to be required."

Current Practice

In 1976 the Bail Act 1976 came into force. It sets out the current and the basic
legal position of bail prevailing in England. It lays out that there is a general right
to bail, except as provided for under the First Schedule of the Act. While there are
different grounds for refusing the right to bail depending on the type of offence, for
all imprison able offences the two basic grounds are as set out by the O'Callaghan
decision. But there is also the additional ground that if the court is satisfied that
there are "substantial grounds for believing" that the defendant if released on bail
will commit an offence while on bail, bail may be refuse.

Under section 5(3) of the Bail Act 1976 the court which withholds bail is required
to give reasons, so that the defendant can consider making an application.3 In
practice, however, the reasons given by English courts on a variety of standard
forms are frequently short and not explicitly based upon particular facts and
factors. Stone's Justices' Manual suggests that magistrates announce any decision
to refuse bail merely by relating the grounds and statutory reasons in short form. 4
English administrative law also requires that, where there is an existing obligation
to give reasons for a decision, the reasons given be clear and adequate, and deal
with the substantial issues in the case.5

The English courts use tick boxes for recording the grounds and the reasons for not
granting bail. There is a use of a standard pattern that which lists out the various
reasons for not granting the bail. These forms vary in their precise configuration,
but in substance they are all the same as all of them set out the grounds for refusing
bail in one column, and a number of possible reasons for the findings those
grounds established in another column. The decision is recorded by ticking the

3
Legislation has recently been enacted which, when brought into force, will require magistrates?
courts and the Crown Court to give reasons for their decisions where they grant bail after hearing
representations from the prosecutor in favour of withholding bail (Criminal Justice and Police
Act 2001, s 129). Such a requirement has the potential to promote thoughtful decision-making
and the proper consideration of the risks that a defendant might pose if granted bail.
4
Stone's Justices? Manual 2000, para 1-432.
5
H W R Wade and C F Forsyth, Administrative Law (8th ed 2000) pp 918-919.
relevant box in each column. But the decisions recorded on standard forms might
be at risk of being characterized as "abstract" or "stereotyped", and therefore
inadequate. The quality of the reasons given directly reflects the quality of the
decision-making process.

Evolution in America

According to the San Francisco News and the SF Chronicle, the first modern Bail
Bonds business in the United States, the system by which a person pays a
percentage to a professional bondsman who puts up the cash as a guarantee that the
person will appear in court, was established by Tom and Peter P. McDonough in
San Francisco in 1898. In fact, this was the same year that the Bill of Rights was
introduced in England, and the Congress passed the Judiciary Act. This specified
which types of crimes were bailable and set bounds on a judge's discretion in
setting bail. The Act states that all non-capital crimes are bailable and that in
capital cases the decision to detain a suspect, prior to trial, was to be left to the
judge. In 1791 The Bill Of Rights was incorporated into Constitution of the United
States, through the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, guaranteeing citizens the right to
due process of law, a fair and speedy trial and protection against excessive bail.
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that
"excessive bail shall not be required," but it does not provide any absolute right to
bail.

Current Practice

Under current law, a defendant has the right to bail unless there is sufficient reason
not to grant it. The main reasons for refusing bail according to the Bail Act 1976
are that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant (1) will
abscond; (2) will commit further offences whilst on bail; or (3) will interfere with
witnesses. Conditions may be applied to the grant of bail, such as living at a
particular address or, rarely, paying an amount into court or having someone act as
surety. Release on bail is sometimes referred to as police bail, where the release
was by the police rather than by a court.

The alternative to being granted bail is being remanded into custody (also called
being held on remand).

In America, every accused person is entitled to a hearing at which evidence

relevant to his individual case is considered to determine the amount of bail
necessary. No precise rule can be laid down that will determine the amount of bail
required in any particular instance. Bail is to be fixed according to the
circumstances of each case. The matter is generally one for the sound discretion of
the trial court. Although the determination of the trial court is subject to the review
in the appellate courts for abuse of discretion, ordinarily the appellate courts will
not interfere if the amount set by the trial court is reasonable and not excessive.

The amount of a bond should, of course, be sufficient to assure the attendance of

the defendant upon the court when it is required. The bond should be fixed in such
amount that will exact vigilance on the part of the sureties to see that the defendant
appears in court when called.6

Both the Federal Constitution and state constitutions contain provisions against
excessive bail. Bail set at an amount higher than reasonably calculated to insure
that the accused will appear to stand trial and submit to sentence if convicted is
excessive, and falls within the proscription of the Federal Constitution if set by a

6
State v Chivers, 198 La 1098, 5So 2d 363.
federal court, or of the particular state's constitution if set by a state court. But no
hard-and-fast rules for determining what is reasonable bail and what is excessive
bail have been laid down. That the bail is reasonable which, in view of the nature
of the offense, the penalty attached to the offense, and the probability of guilt of
defendant, seems no more than sufficient to secure attendance of the defendant.7

The amount of bail, in and of itself, is not finally determinative of excessiveness.

What would be reasonable bail in the case of one defendant may be excessive in
the case of another.8 As indicated below, such matters as the past criminal record
of the defendant, and the nature of the crime committed and the punishment
therefore, are material factors in determining whether bail is excessive.

Where two or more cased are pending against a defendant, the fact that bail in one
case, considered by itself, is reasonable, does not prevent the collective amount
required in the several cases from being excessive.

The gist of the problem confronting a court in setting the amount of bail is to place
the amount high enough to reasonably assure the presence of defendant when it is
required, and at the same time to avoid a figure higher than that reasonably
calculated to fulfill this purpose, and therefore excessive. The general rule in
federal courts is to try to strike a balance between the need for a tie to the
jurisdiction and the right to freedom from unnecessary restraint before conviction,
under the circumstances surrounding each particular accused.9 In other words, in
determining the amount of bail, the good of the public as well as the rights of the
accused should be kept in mind.

7
Braden v Lady (Ky) 276 SW2d 664.
8
Stack v Boyle, 342 US 1, 96 L Ed 3, 72 S Ct 1; Bennett v United States (CA5 Fla) 36 F2d 475.
9
Spector v United States (CA9 Cal) 193 F2d 1002; United States ex rel. Rubnistein v Mulcahy
(CA2 NY) 155 F2d 1002.
The Bail Reform Act of 1966 provides for the release of defendant on his personal
recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount
specified by the judicial officer before whom he appears, unless the officer
determines, in the exercise of his discretion, that such release will not reasonably
assure the appearance of defendant as required, in which event specified conditions
of release which will reasonably assure defendant's appearance for trial may be
imposed. The Bail Reforms Act, 1966 was initiated by President Johnson who felt
that under the Federal Rules, bail in an amount higher than reasonably calculated
to be necessary to assure the presence of the accused is excessive.

It has been stated that the factors to be taken into consideration in determining the
amount of bail are:
(1) ability of the accused to give bail,
(2) nature of offense,
(3) penalty for the offense charged,
(4) character and reputation of the accused,
(5) health of the accused,
(6) character and strength of the evidence,
(7) probability of the accused appearing at trial,
(8) forfeiture of other bonds, and
(9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested. 10
That the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases should also be
considered.

A major factor in determining the amount of bail in a current matter is the

character and former criminal record of the defendant. It has been held, however,

10
Delaney v Shobe, 218 (inability to give bond in the amount set is not sufficient reason for
holding the amount excessive).
that the criminal activities and tendencies of a person applying for bail on a charge
of vagrancy do not justify the fixing of bail at an excessive amount for the purpose
of keeping him in jail.

In determining the amount of bail, voluntary surrender may be considered as an

indication that the defendant has no intention of absconding from justice. On the
other hand, it is also proper, in setting a higher bail figure, to take into
consideration the fact that at the time of arrest the accused was a fugitive from
justice, or the fact that the defendant has previously absconded while under
indictment.

Even where bail is a matter of right, the fact that a person has previously forfeited
bail is a factor to be considered in determining the amount of bail; in such a case
bail may be set in such amount as will reasonably assure the presence of the
defendant at court, although bail may not be refused altogether.11 In setting the
bail, the court may also consider the behavior or misbehavior of the defendant
during parole from prison on a previous criminal conviction.

The probability of the establishment of guilt at the trial, or the existence of doubt
as to the guilt of the accused, is a proper consideration in determining the amount
of bail. Hence a court, in determining the amount of bail, may consider the
character and strength of the evidence by which the crime charged is supported.

A court should give some regard to the prisoner's pecuniary circumstances, since
what is reasonable bail to a man of wealth may be equivalent to a denial of the

11
In addition to a higher bail, the court may require additional sureties after a prior forfeiture of
bail. Wallace v State, 193 Tenn 182, 245 SW2d 192, 29 ALR2d 941.
right to bail if exacted of a poor man charged with a like offense.12 An accused
cannot be denied release from detention because of indigence, but is
constitutionally entitled to be released on his personal recognizance where other
relevant factors make it reasonable to believe that he will comply with the orders
of the court.13

However, bail is not rendered excessive by the mere inability of the accused to
procure bail in the amount required. In other words, the extent of the pecuniary
ability of the accused to furnish bail in not controlling, if it were, the fixing of any
amount, no matter how small, where the accused had no means of his own and no
friends who were able or willing to become sureties for him, would constitute a
case of excessive bail, and would entitle him to get at large on his own
recognizance. It is the incarceration of those individuals who cannot meet
established money bail requirements, without meaningful consideration of other
possible alternatives, which infringes on both due process and equal protection
requirements.

The current American position is stated as follows in a standard treatise "There is

power in the court to release the defendant without bail or on his own recognition."

12
McCoy v United States, 123 App DC 81, 357 F2d 272; Beddow v State, 259 Ala 651, 68 So
2d 503; People ex rel. Sammons v Snow, 340 III 464, 173 NE 8, 72 ALR 798; Green v Peit, 222
Ind 467, 54 NE2d 281; State v Mastrial, 266 Minn 58, 122 NW2d 621, certden 375 US 942, 11 L
Ed 2d 274, 84 S Ct 349; Royalty v State (Miss) 235 So 2d 718; Ex parte Royalty v State (Miss)
235 So 2d 718; Ex parte Malley, 50 Nev 248, 256 P 512, 53 ALR 395.
13
Bandy v United States (US) 7 L Ed 9, 82 S Ct 11 (per Douglas J., as individual justice).
THE LEGAL POSITION IN INDIA

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereinafter), does not define bail,
although the terms bailable offence and non-bailable offence have been defined in
section 2(a) Cr.P.C. as follows: " Bailable offence means an offence which is
shown as bailable in the First Schedule or which is made bailable by any other law
for the time being enforce, and non-bailable offence means any other offence".
Further, ss. 436 to 450 set out the provisions for the grant of bail and bonds in
criminal cases. The amount of security that is to be paid by the accused to secure
his release has not been mentioned in the Cr.P.C.. Thus, it is the discretion of the
court to put a monetary cap on the bond. Unfortunately, it has been seen that courts
have not been sensitive to the economic plight of the weaker sections of society.
The unreasonable and exorbitant amounts demanded by the courts as bail bonds
clearly show their callous attitude towards the poor.

According to the 78th report of the Law Commission as on April 1, 1977, of a total
prison population of 1,84,169, as many as 1,01,083 (roughly 55%) were under-
trials. For specific jails, some other reports show: Secunderabad Central Jail- 80
per cent under-trials; Surat-78 per cent under-trials; Assam, Tripura and
Meghalaya-66 per cent under-trials.

One of the reasons for this is, as already mentioned above, is the large scale
poverty amongst the majority of the population in our country. Fragmentation of
land holdings is a common phenomenon in rural India. A family consisting of
around 8 ? 10 members depends on a small piece of land for their subsistence,
which also is a reason for disguised unemployment. When one of the members of
such a family gets charged with an offence, the only way they can secure his
release and paying the bail is by either selling off the land or giving it on mortgage.
This would further push them more into the jaws of poverty. This is the precise
reason why most of the under trials languish in jail instead of being out on bail.

JUDICIAL TREND

An overview of the following cases highlight the adverse condition of the poor
with regard to the unjust bail system in India. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand
14
, the accused was convicted by the trial court. When he went on appeal the High
Court, it acquitted him. The State went on appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court
under Art. 136 of the Constitution through a special leave petition. The accused
was directed to surrender by the court. He then filed for bail. It was then for the
first time that Justice Krishna Iyer raised his voice against this unfair system of bail
administration. He said that though while the system of pecuniary bail has a
tradition behind it, a time for rethinking has come. It may well be that in most
cases an undertaking would serve the purpose.

In Moti Ram and Ors. v State of M.P 15, the accused who was a poor mason was
convicted. The apex court had passed a sketchy order, referring it to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate to enlarge him on bail, without making any specifications as to
sureties, bonds etc. The CJM assumed full authority on the matter and fixed Rs.
10,000 as surety and bond and further refused to allow his brother to become a
surety as his property was in the adjoining village. MR went on appeal once more
to the apex court and Justice Krishna Iyer condemned the act of the CJM, and said
that the judges should be more inclined towards bail and not jail.

14
AIR 1977 SC 2447
15
AIR 1978 SC 1594
In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India16, Justice Krishna Iyer once again spoke
against the unfair system of bail that was prevailing in India. No definition of bail
has been given in the code, although the offences are classified as bailable and
non-bailable. Further Justice P.N.Bhagwati also spoke about how unfair and
discriminatory the bail system is when looked at from the economic criteria of a
person this discrimination arises even if the amount of bail fixed by the magistrates
isn't high for some, but a large majority of those who are brought before the courts
in criminal cases are so poor that they would find it difficult to furnish bail even if
it's a small amount.

Further in Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Sec, State of Bihar17, the
Court laid down the ratio that when the man is in jail for a period longer than the
sentence he is liable for then he should be released.

CONCLUSION

A perusal of the above cases highlights the strong anti-poor bias of the Indian
criminal justice system. Even though the courts in some cases have tried to
intervene and also have laid down certain guidelines to be followed but
unfortunately nothing has been done about it. There is also a strong need felt for a
complete review of the bail system keeping in mind the socio-economic condition
of the majority of our population. While granting bail the court must also look at
the socio-economic plight of the accused and must also have a compassionate
attitude towards them. A proper scrutiny may be done to determine whether the
accused has his roots in the community which would deter him from fleeing from

16
AIR 1978 SC 571
17
AIR 1979 SC 1360
the court. The court can take into account the following facts concerning the
accused before granting him bail:

(1) The nature of the offence committed by the accused.

(2) The length of his residence in the community.
(3) His employment status history and his financial condition.
(4) His family ties and relationships.
(5) His reputation character and monetary conditions.
(6) His prior criminal records, including any record or prior release on
recognizance or on bail.
(7) Identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for his
reliability.
(8) The nature of the offence charged and the apparent probability of conviction
and the likely sentence in so far as these factors are relevant to the risk of non-
appearance.
(9) Any other factors indicating the ties of the accused to the community or barring
on the risk of willful failure to appear.

THE WAY FORWARD

It is thought that from the various schemes the government operates for rural
employment, loans to farmers etc, a portion of the funds which it transfers to the
panchayat for developmental work of the same should be set aside and kept to
meet the bail amount for under trials belonging to the particular panchayat / block.
The utilization of this fund would be in the hands of the elected leaders of the
society with the representative of district collector / district magistrate being a part
of the system. This would, go a long way in securing freedom for scores of under
trials who would then be able to contribute to society thereby playing an important
role and forming part of the national mainstream. Such a scenario will have the
effect of reducing the burden of over-crowding in jail.

The setting up of separate jails, or at any rate isolating under trials from convicts,
would prevent hardened criminals from exercising their deleterious influence over
under trials. Such segregation would also change the attitude of jail authorities and
society at large towards under trials.

The under trials who have been charged with petty crimes can further be put in
reformative homes instead and asked to do community service till the time they are
released on bail. Elementary education facilities must be granted to those under
trials who are uneducated and illiterate. Thus, I feel that the benefit of bail should
not only be in the hands of a few, but, should be available to the masses including
those who do not have the financial capacity to afford it.
RIGHT TO BAIL IN INDIA
INTRODUCTION

When you are arrested, you are taken into custody. This means that you are not
free to leave the scene. Without being arrested, you can be detained, however, or
held for questioning for a short time if a police officer or other person believes you
may be involved in a crime. For example, an officer may detain you if you are
carrying a large box near a burglary site. You can also be detained by storekeepers
if they suspect you have stolen something. Whether you are arrested or detained,
you do not have to answer any questions except to give your name and address and
show some identification if requested. The object of arrest and detention of the
accessed person is primarily to secure his appearance at the trial and to ensure that
in case he is found guilty he is available to receive the sentence. If his presence at
the trial could be reasonable ensured otherwise than by his arrest and detention, it
would be unjust and unfair to deprive the accused of his liberty during the
pendency of the criminal proceedings against him. The provisions regarding the
issue of summons or those relating to the arrest of the accessed person under a
warrant or without a warrant or those relating to the release of the accessed at his
trial but without unreasonable and unjustifiably interfering with his liberty. Thus
this article is related with the provisions related with the release of a person on a
bail.

In words of Krishna Iyer J. .. the subject of bail:-

" ..... belongs to the blurred area of criminal justice system and largely hinges on
the hunch of the bench, otherwise called judicial discretion. The Code is cryptic on
this topic and the Court prefers to be tacit, be the order custodial or not. And yet,
the issue is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of public treasury all of
which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially
sensitised judicial process."

Thus release on bail is crucial to the accused as the consequences of pre-trial

detention are given. If release on bail is denied to the accessed it would mean that
though he is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved beyond the reasonable
doubt he would be subjected to the psychological and physical deprivation of jail
life. The jail accessed loses his job and is prevented from contributing effectively
to the preparation of his defense.

Therefore where there are no risks involved in the release of the arrested person it
would be cruel and unjust, to deny him bail. The law bails " 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 misadventures of a person
alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of
criminal jurisprudence. The presumption of innocence of an accused till he is
found guilty".

In order to sub serve the above said objective, the Legislature in its wisdom has
given precise directions for granting or granting bail.

WHY BAIL?

Before actually determining the place of bail within human rights framework as
conferred by the Constitution, it is important to examine the object and meaning of
bail, such that an analysis of these fundamental objects and change therein may
reveal a change. The object detention of an accused person is primarily to secure
her/his appearance at the time of trial and is available to receive sentence, in case
found guilty. If his/her presence at the trial could be reasonably ensured other than
by his arrest or detention, it would be unjust and unfair to deprive the accused of
his liberty during pendency of criminal proceedings.

Thus it is important to note the relevant provisions enshrined in the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights:-

Article 9- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10- Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11(1)- Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had
all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

There are thus several reasons which have been enumerated as to why bail ought to
be allowed to prevent pre-trial detention.

MEANING OF BAIL

Bail, in law, means procurement of release from prison of a person awaiting trial or
an appeal, by the deposit of security to ensure his submission at the required time
to legal authority.

"Bail has been defined in the law lexicon as security for the appearance of the
accused person on giving which he is released pending trial or investigation."
According to Black's Law Dictionary, what is contemplated by bail is to "procure
the release of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he/she shall appear
at the time and place designated and submit him/herself to the jurisdiction and
judgment of the court."

MEANING OF BAIL IN INDIA

According to Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereinafter), does not define
bail, although the terms bailable offense and non-bailable offense have been
defined in section 2(a) Cr.P.C. as follows: " Bailable offense means an offense
which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule or which is made bailable by any
other law for the time being enforce, and non-bailable offense means any other
offense". That schedule refers to all the offenses under the Indian Penal Code and
puts them into bailable and on bailable categories. The analysis of the relevant
provisions of the schedule would show that the basis of this categorization rests on
diverse consideration. However, it can be generally stated that all serious offenses,
i.e. offenses punishable with imprisonment for three years or more have seen
considered as non bailable offenses. Further, Sections 436 to 450 set out the
provisions for the grant of bail and bonds in criminal cases. The amount of security
that is to be paid by the accused to secure his release has not been mentioned in the
Cr.P.C. Thus, it is the discretion of the court to put a monetary cap on the bond.

Indian Courts however, have greater discretion to grant or deny bail in the case of
persons under criminal arrest, e.g., it is usually refused when the accused is
charged with homicide.

It must be further noted that a person accused of a bailable offenses is arrested or

detained without warrant he has a right to be released on bail. But if the offense is
non-bailable that does not mean that the person accused of such offense shall not
be released on bail: but here in such case bail is not a matter of right, but only a
privilege to be granted at the discretion of the court. Provisions under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, makes provisions for release of accused
persons on bail. Section 436 of the Code provides for release on bail in cases of
bailable offenses. Section 436 provides that when person not accused of a non-
bailable offense is arrested or detained he can be detained as right to claim to be
released on bail. The section covers all cases of person s accused of bailable of
fences cases of persons though not accused of any offense but against whom
security proceedings have been initiated under Chapter VIII of the Code and other
cases of arrest and detention which are not in respect of any bailable offense.

This section entitles a person other than the accused of a non-bailable offense to be
released on bail, it may be recalled that S. 50(2) makes it obligatory for a police
officer arresting such a person without a warrant to inform him his right to be
released on bail.

Section 436 (1) of the Code signifies that release on bail is a matter of right, or in
other words, the officer-in-charge of a police station or any court does not have any
discretion whatsoever to deny bail in such cases. The word " appear in this sub-
clause is wide enough to include voluntary appearance of the person accused of an
offense even where no summons or warrant has been issued against him. There is
nothing in S. 436 to exclude voluntary appearance or to suggest that the
appearance of the accused must be in the obedience of a process issued by the
court. The surrender and the physical presence of the accused with the submission
to the jurisdiction and order of the court is judicial custody, and the accused may
be granted bail and released from such custody.

The right to be released on bail under S. 436(1) cannot be nullified indirectly by

fixing too high amount of bond or bail-bond to be furnished by the person seeking
bail. Section 440(1) provides the amount of every bond executed under this chapter
shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case, and shall not be
excessive. Further S. 440(2) empowers the High Court or the Court of Sessions
may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced.

Sub-section (2) of S. 436 makes a provision to effect that a person who absconds
or has broken the condition of his bail bond when released on bail is a bailable case
on a previous occasion, shall not as of right to be entitled to bail when brought
before the court on any subsequent date even though the offense may be bailable.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India18

The amount of the bond should be determined having regard to these relevant
factors and should not be fixed mechanically according to a schedule keyed to the
nature of the charge. Otherwise, it would be difficult for the accused to secure his
release even by executing a personal bond, it would be very harsh and oppressive if
he is required to satisfy the court-and what is said in regard to the court must apply
equally in relation to the police while granting bail-that he is solvent enough to pay
the amount of the bond if he fails to appear at the trial and in consequence the bond
is forfeited. The inquiry into the solvency of the accused can become a source of
great harassment to him and often resulting denial of bail and deprivation of liberty

18
[1978] 2 SCR 621
and should not, therefore, be insisted upon as a condition of acceptance of the
personal bond.

It also stated that there is a need to provide by an amendment of the penal law that
if an accused willfully fails to appear incompliance with the promise contained in
his personal bond, he shall be liable to penal action.

J. Per Bhagwati & Koshal, JJ. further observed that it is now high time that the
State Government realized its responsibility to the people in the matter of
administration of justice and set up more courts for the trial of cases.

In Moti Ram & Others. v. State of M.P19

Urgent need for a clear and explicit provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure
enabling the release, inappropriate cases, of an under trial prisoner on his bond
without sureties and without any monetary obligation.

Criminal courts today, are extremely unsatisfactory and needs drastic change. In
the first place it is virtually impossible to translate risk of non- appearance by the
accused into precise monetary terms and even its basic premise that risk of
financial loss is necessary to prevent the accused from fleeing is of doubtful
validity. There are several considerations which deter an accused from running
away from justice and risk of financial loss is only one of them and that too not a
major one. In this case the court also pointed out the enlightened Bail Projects in
the United States such as Manhattan Bail Project and D. C. Bail Project shows that
even without monetary bail it has been possible to secure the presence of the
accused at the trial in quite a large number of cases. The Court laid down following

19
[1978] 4 SCC 47
guidelines, that determine whether the accused has his roots in the community
which would deter him from fleeing, the Court should take into account the
following factors concerning the accused:

1. The length of his residence in the community.

2. His employment status, history and his financial condition.
3. His family ties and relationships.
4. His reputation, character and monetary condition.
5. His prior criminal record including any record or prior release on
recognizance or on bail.
6. The identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch
for his reliability.

The nature of the offense charged and the apparent probability of conviction and
the likely sentence in so far as these factors are relevant to the risk of
nonappearance, and If the court is satisfied on a consideration of the relevant
factors that the accused has his ties in the community and there is no substantial
risk of non-appearance, the accused may, as far as possible, be released on his
personal bond.

Of course, if facts are brought to the notice of the court which go to show that
having regard to the condition and background of the accused his previous record
and the nature and circumstances of the offense, there may be a substantial risk of
his non-appearance at the trial, as for example, where the accused is a notorious
bad character or confirmed criminal or the offense is serious (these examples are
only by way of illustration), the court may not release the accused on his personal
bond and may insist on bail with sureties. But in the majority of cases,
considerations like family ties and relationship, roots in the community,
employment status etc. may prevail with the court in releasing the accused on his
personal bond and particularly in cases where the offense is not grave and the
accused is poor or belongs to a weaker section of the community, release on
personal bond could, as far as possible, be preferred. But even while releasing the
accused on personal bond it is necessary to caution the court that the amount of the
bond which it. Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained.

The new provision Section 436Awas introduced in order to solve the problems of
undertrials' who were languishing in jails as they will now be given an opportunity
to be set free instead of endlessly waiting for their trial to take place. This move
has been made due to a faulty criminal justice system and provides a makeshift
method of providing justice and relief to undertrial prisoners. This seems to
suggest that the Legislature and the Government have accepted the existence of the
faulty system and their inability to do anything about it. For this purpose section
436 A was inserted.

According to S. 436-A, a person who has undergone detention for a period

extending up to half of the maximum period of imprisonment imposed for a
particular offense, shall be released on her/his personal bond with or without
sureties. The procedure provided is that the Court has to hear the Public Prosecutor
and give its decision with reasons in writing. The Court may release the applicant,
or if not satisfied may order for the continued detention of the applicant. However,
no prisoner can be detained for a period longer than the maximum period of
imprisonment provided. The exception to the section is that it is not applicable to
offenders who have been sentenced to death.

Moving onto the (de)merits of the provisions itself, S. 436-A gives discretion to the
Court to set the prisoner free or to make him/her continue imprisonment. There is
no mention of any applications having to be filed under the section. The first part
of the section states that any prisoner who has served more than half the term of
his/her imprisonment 'shall' be released. However, the proviso puts a restriction on
the mandatory provision by giving discretionary powers to the courts. This raises
questions regarding the implementation of the provision. There is every chance
that a prisoner may be sent back to jail to serve a period longer than the half term
of his/her sentence. Till the Judges give their written reasons for the same, one will
not know on what grounds a continuation of the term can be ordered as the section
does not provide any guidelines. Will the under trial prisoner continue to serve
term till the maximum period?

Bailable offence

When any person accused for a bailable offence is arrested or detained without
warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a
Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any
stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be
released on bail.

In case of a bailable offence bail is a matter of right.

If such officer or Court, thinks it fit such person maybe released on a personal
bond without sureties. In case of bailable offence, one has to only file the bail
bonds and no application is required. Bailable offence means an offence which is
made bailable by law for the time being in force. Bailable offences are those
offences in which the accused is having a matter of right to be released on bail.
Following are the few bailable offences in India:

Section 144: Joining an unlawful assembly armed with any deadly weapon
Section 147: Rioting
Section 148: Rioting with carrying arms and deadly weapons.
Section 167: Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause
injury
Section 171: Bribery
Section 216: Harboring robbers and dacoits
Section 259: Having possession of counterfeit government stamp
Section 272: Adulterating food or drink intended for sale
Section 284: Dealing with any poisonous substance so as to endanger human life
etc.
Section 285: Dealing with fire or any combustible matter so as to endanger
human life etc.
Section 304: Causing death by rash or negligent act
Section 312: Causing miscarriage
Section 323: Voluntarily causing hurt
Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means
Section 325: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
Section 336: Doing any act which endangers human life or the personal safety of
others
Section 337: Causing hurt by an act which endangers human life
Section 341: Wrongfully restraining any person
Section 342: Wrongfully confining any person
 Section 356: Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property
Section 363: Kidnapping
Section 370: Buying or disposing of any person as a slave
Section 376: Intercourse by public servant with women in his custody
Section 385: Attempting to commit extortion
Section 417: Cheating
Section 447: Criminal trespass
Section 448: House trespass
Section 465: Forgery
Section 477: Falsification of accounts
Section 489: Possession of forged or counterfeit currency or bank notes
Section 500: Defamation
Section 504: Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace
Section 506: Criminal intimidation to cause death

Non Bailable Offence

In case a person is accused of a non-bailable offence it is a matter of discretion of

the court to grant or refuse bail and application has to be made in court to grant
bail.

1. When a person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable
offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a
police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court
or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but
i. Such person shall not be released if there appear reasonable grounds for
believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life;
ii. Such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable
offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable
with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or
more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a
non-bailable and cognizable offence :
Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i)
or clause (ii) as above, be released on bail if such person is under the age
of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm:
Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in
clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so
to do for any other special reason:
Provided also that the mere fact that an accused may be required for
being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient
ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released
on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such
directions as may be given by the Court.

2. If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation; inquiry

or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused has committed non-bailable offence, but that there
are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall,
subject to the provision of section 446-A and pending such inquiry, be
released on bail or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the
 execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter
provided.
3. When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or
of an offence under Chapter 6, Chapter 16 or Chapter 17 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any
such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (!), the Court may impose
any condition which the Court considers necessary-

a. in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the
conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or
b. In order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is
suspected, or
c. Otherwise in the interests of justice.

4. An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1) or

sub-section (2), shall record in writing his or its reasons or special reasons
for so doing.
5. Any Court, which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person
be arrested and commit him to custody.
6. If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any
non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the
first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is if
custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the
 satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing,
the Magistrate otherwise directs.

If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-
bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any
such offence, it shall release the accused if he is in custody, on the execution by
him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.

GRANTING OF BAIL WITH CONDITIONS

Section 437 of the Code provides for release on bail in cases of non-bailable
offenses. In such cases, bail is not a matter of right. Court has sufficient discretion
to deny or to grant bail. First Schedule to the Code provides the list of bailable and
non-bailable offenses. Further cases often arise under S. 437, where though the
court regards the case as fit for the grant of bail, it regards imposition of certain
conditions as necessary in the circumstances. To meet this need sub-section (3) of
S. 437 provides:

When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offense punishable

with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offense
under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) or abatement of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offense, is
released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court may impose any condition which
the Court considers necessary: -
 (a) In order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the
conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or
(b) In order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is
suspected, or
(c) Otherwise in the interests of Justice.

It will be noticed that: -

1) The power to impose conditions has been given to the court and not to
any police officer
2) The power to impose conditions can only be exercised
i. Where the offence is punishable with the imprisonment which may
extend to seven years or more or,
ii. Where the offence is one under Chapter VI (Offences against the
State), Chapter XVI (offences against the human body), or Chapter
XVII (offences against the property) of I.P.C, or
iii. Where the offence is one of the abetment of or conspiracy to or
attempt to commit any such offence as mentioned above in (i) and (ii).

CANCELLATION OF BAIL

According to S. 437(5) any court which has released a person on bail under (1) or
sub sec (2) of S. 437 may if considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person
be arrested and committed to custody.

The power to cancel bail has been given to the court and not to a police officer.
Secondly, the court which granted the bail can alone cancel it. The bail granted by
a police officer cannot be cancelled by the court of a magistrate. For cancellation
of bail in such a situation, the powers of the High Court or Court of Session under
S. 439 will have to invoked. Rejection of bail when bails applied for is one thing;
cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail
application in a non-bailable cases than to cancel a bail granted in such case.
Cancellation of bail necessary involves the review of a decision already made and
can large be permitted only if , by reason of supervening circumstances it would be
no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during
the trial. However, bail granted illegal or improperly by a wrong arbitrary exercise
of judicial discretion can be cancelled even if there is absence of supervening
circumstances. If there is no material to prove that the accused abused his freedom
court may not cancel the bail.

In Public Prosecutor v. George Williams20

The Madras High Court pointed out five cases where a person granted bail may
have the bail cancelled and is recommitted to jail:

(a) Where the person on bail, during the period of the bail, commits the very
same offence for which is being tried or has been convicted, and thereby
proves his utter unfitness to be on bail;
(b) If he hampers the investigation as will be the case if he, when on bail;
forcibly prevents the search of place under his control for the corpus delicti
or other incriminating things;

20
1951 Mad 1042
 (c) If he tampers with the evidence, as by intimidating the prosecution
witness, interfering with scene of the offence in order to remove traces or
proofs of crime, etc.
(d) If he runs away to a foreign country, or goes underground, or beyond the
control of his sureties; and
(e) If he commits acts of violence, in revenge, against the police and the
prosecution witnessed & those who have booked him or are trying to book
him.

RIGHT TO BAIL AND ARTICLE 21'S RIGHT TO PERSONAL

LIBERTY

The right to bail is concomitant of the accusatorial system, which favors a bail
system that ordinarily enables a person to stay out of jail until a trial has found
him/her guilty. In India, bail or release on personal recognizance is available as a
right in bailable offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment and only
to women and children in non-bailable offences punishable with death or life
imprisonment. The right of police to oppose bail, the absence of legal aid for the
poor and the right to speedy reduce to vanishing point the classification of offences
into bailable and non-bailable and make the prolonged incarceration of the poor
inevitable during the pendency of investigation by the police and trial by a court.

The fact that under trials formed 80 percent of Bihar's prison population, their
period of imprisonment ranging from a few months to ten years; some cases
wherein the period of imprisonment of the under trials exceeded the period of
imprisonment prescribed for the offences they were charged with- these appalling
outrages were brought before the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State
of Bihar21

Justice Bhagwati found that these unfortunate under trials languished in prisons not
because they were guilty but because they were too poor to afford a bail. In
Mantoo Majumdar v. State of Bihar22 , the Apex Court once again upheld the
under trials right to personal liberty and ordered the release of the petitioners on
their own bond and without sureties as they had spent six years awaiting their trial,
in prison. The court deplored the delay in police investigation and the mechanical
operation of the remand process by the magistrates insensitive to the personal
liberty of the under trials, remanded by them to prison. The Court deplored the
delay in police investigation and the mechanical operation of the remand process
by the magistrates insensitive to the personal liberty of under trials, and the
magistrate failure to monitor the detention of the under trials remanded by them to
prison.

The travails of illegal detainees languishing in prisons, who were uniformed, or too
poor to avail of, their right bail under section 167 Cr.P.C. was further brought to
light in letters written to Justice Bhagwati by the Hazaribagh Free Legal Aid
Committee in Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar23. The court recognized the
inequitable operation of the law and condemned it- "The rule of law does not exist
merely for those who have the means to fight for their rights and very often for
perpetuation of status quo... but it exist also for the poor and the downtrodden...
and it is solemn duty of the court to protect and uphold the basic human rights of
the weaker section of the society. Thus having discussed various hardships of pre-

21
AIR 1979 SC 1360
22
AIR 1980 SC 846
23
(1982) 2 SCC 583
trial detention caused, due to unaffordability of bail and unawareness of their right
to bail, to under trials and as such violation of their right to personal liberty and
speedy trial under Article 21 as well as the obligation of the court to ensure such
right. It becomes imperative to discuss the right to bail and its nexus to the right of
free legal aid to ensure the former under the Constitution- in order to sensitize the
rule of law of bail to the demands of the majority of poor and to make human
rights of the weaker sections a reality.

RIGHT TO BAIL AND RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID :

ARTICLES 21 AND 22 READ WITH ARTICLE 39A

Article 21 of the Constitution is said to enshrine the most important human rights
in criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court had for almost 27 years after the
enactment of the Constitution taken the view that this Article merely embodied a
facet of the Dicey on concept of the rule of law that no one can deprived of his life
and personal liberty by the executive action unsupported by law. If there was a law
which provided some sort of procedure, it was enough to deprive a person of his
life and personal liberty.

In the Indian Constitution there is no specifically enumerated constitutional right to

legal aid for an accused person. Article 22(1) does provide that no person who is
arrested shall be denied the right to consult and to be defended by legal practitioner
of his choice, but according to the interpretation placed on this provision by the
Supreme Court in Janardhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad24. In this provision
does not carry with it the right to be provided the services of legal practitioners at
state cost. Also Article 39-A introduced in 1976 enacts a mandate that the state
shall provide free legal service by suitable legislations or schemes or any other

24
AIR 1951 SC 227
way, to ensure that opportunities for justice are not denied to any citizen by reason
of economic or other disabilities - this however remains a Directive Principle of
State Policy which while laying down an obligation on the State does not lay down
an obligation enforceable in Court of law and does not confer a constitutional right
on the accused to secure free legal assistance.

However the Supreme Court filled up this constitutional gap through creative
judicial interpretation of Article 21 following Maneka Gandhi's case. The Supreme
Court held in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra25 and Hussainara Khatoon's
case that a procedure which does not make legal services available to an accused
person who is too poor to afford a lawyer and who would, therefore go through the
trial without legal assistance cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair and just. It is
essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article
21 that a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the court process should
have legal services made available to him.

The right to free legal assistance is an essential element of any reasonable, fair and
just procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the
guarantee of Article 21.

Thus the Supreme Court spelt out the right to legal aid in criminal proceeding
within the language of Article 21 and held that this is....

"a constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer
and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or
incommunicado situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to
an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so

25
AIR 1978 SC 1548
require, provided of course the accused person does not object to the provision of
such lawyer."

CONCLUSION

It is indisputable that an unnecessarily prolonged detention in prison of under trials

before being brought to trial is an affront to all civilized norms of human liberty
and any meaningful concept of individual liberty which forms the bedrock of a
civilized legal system must view with distress patently long periods of
imprisonment before persons awaiting trial can receive the attention of the
administration of justice. Thus the law of bails must continue to allow for
sufficient discretion, in all cases, to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to give
way to the humanization of criminal justice system and to sensitize the same to the
needs of those who must otherwise be condemned to languish in prisons for no
more fault other than their inability to pay for legal counsel to advise them on bail
matters or to furnish the bail amount itself.

While concluding, it seems desirable to draw attention to the absence of an explicit

provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the release, in appropriate
cases, of an under trial prisoner on his bond without sureties and without any
monetary obligation. There is urgent need for a clear provision. Undeniably, the
thousands of under trial prisoners lodged in Indian prisons today include many
who are unable to secure their release before trial because of their inability to
produce sufficient financial guarantee for their appearance. Where that is the only
reason for their continued incarceration, there may be good ground for
complaining of invidious discrimination. The more so under a constitutional
system which promises social equality and social justice to all of its citizens. The
deprivation of liberty for the reason of financial poverty only is an incongruous
element in a society aspiring to the achievement of these constitutional objectives.
There are sufficient guarantees for appearance in the host of considerations to
which reference has been made earlier and, it seems to me, our law-makers would
take an important step-in defense of individual liberty if appropriate provision as
made in the statute for non-financial releases.
Bibliography

www.legalserviceindia.com
www.ezinearticles.com
www.wikipedia.com
www.evakil.com
www.vakilbabu.com

Books referred

Criminal law , PSA Pillai

Law of Crimes , Ratanlal & Dhirajlala, 24th edition
Universals Criminal Manual (Universal law publishing co. Pvt. Ltd.)