State of Rajasthan v. Balchand
Supreme Court of India · 20 September 1977 · 2 judges · 1977 AIR 2447; 1978 SCR (1) 535; 1977 SCC (4) 308
Stating that the basic rule is bail, not jail, the Court released on bail a respondent who had surrendered after the State was granted leave to appeal against his acquittal by the High Court.
Facts
The High Court acquitted the respondent and he was released after its judgment. The State of Rajasthan obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the acquittal. The respondent then surrendered and applied to the Supreme Court for bail pending the appeal. The Court noted that he had been on bail throughout the trial, that nothing suggested he had abused the trust placed in him, and that he was a young man of 27 with a family to maintain. An application for intervention was also made and allowed.
Questions before the Court
- On what considerations should bail be granted to a person who has surrendered after the State obtains leave to appeal against his acquittal?
What the Court held
- The basic rule is bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggesting that the petitioner may flee from justice, thwart the course of justice, repeat offences, intimidate witnesses or create similar trouble. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive.
- The gravity of the offence and the heinousness of the crime are relevant, since they may induce the accused to avoid justice, and must weigh with the court.
- On the facts, the petitioner had not abused bail during the trial and was not a desperate character or unsocial element likely to abscond, so bail was granted. The risk of abscondence was met by a direction to report to the police station at Baren once every fortnight.
- Bail was granted on a personal bond with one surety for Rs. 5,000. The Court observed that the time had come to rethink pecuniary bail, since an undertaking by relations or an organisation to which the accused belongs may often be better and more socially relevant than monetary suretyship.
Why it matters
The order states, in a short form, the principle that the basic rule is bail, not jail, and lists the kinds of circumstances that justify refusing bail: risk of flight, interference with justice, repetition of offences and intimidation of witnesses. It also questions the reliance on monetary sureties and suggests undertakings by relations or organisations as a more socially relevant alternative.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.”
“While the system- of pecuniary bail has a tradition behind it, the time has come for rethinking on the subject. It may well be that in most cases not monetary suretyship but undertaking by relations of the petitioner or organi- sation to which he belongs may be better and more socially relevant.”
Case and bench
- Parties
- State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand @ Baliay
- Case
- Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 1424-1425 of 1977 (Application for release on bail)
- Decided
- 20 September 1977
- Bench
- Krishnaiyer, V.R., Untwalia, N.L.
- Opinions
- Order of the Court delivered by Krishna Iyer, J.