Should bail be cancelled solely because of legal flaws in bail order? Supreme Court asks

The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concern over the increasing number of appeals challenging bail orders.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that the expanding body of bail jurisprudence is diverting attention from the larger goal of ensuring speedy criminal trials.

Pertinently, the Court said that it would examine whether a legally flawed bail order can, by itself, be ground to cancel the bail granted to an accused.

The Court made the observations while refusing to cancel the bail granted to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in the alleged ₹2,000-crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam.

The discussion arose after the prosecution challenged the High Court's order granting bail and objected to its reasoning. While refusing to interfere with the grant of bail, the Court left larger questions of law open for consideration in an appropriate case.

Justice Bagchi noted that the Court was increasingly being called upon to examine the legal correctness of bail orders. This, he held, prompts it to consider whether an erroneous order, by itself, is sufficient to deprive an accused of liberty.

According to Justice Bagchi, the correct test for cancellation of bail is whether the accused's continued liberty obstructs the administration of justice, rather than whether the order granting bail suffers from legal infirmities.

The Court noted that a growing number of appeals before the Supreme Court challenging bail orders has shifted judicial focus towards correcting such orders instead of facilitating the progress of criminal trials.

Additionally, the Court observed that excessive attention by investigating agencies and prosecutors to appeals against bail orders could ultimately undermine the objective of securing convictions by delaying the trial process. It said that this growing body of litigation on bail has become a matter of concern for the administration of criminal justice rather than for individual cases alone.

The Court also highlighted the increasing length and complexity of bail orders passed under special statutes such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It remarked that bail orders in such cases now frequently run to 40 or 50 pages. It added that judicial time must be utilised cautiously.

CJI Kant observed that the trend was not confined to appellate courts, noting that High Courts were also taking an increasingly rigid approach in bail matters. Referring to a recent case before the Allahabad High Court, CJI Kant noted that an advocate had remained incarcerated for nearly two years.

He indicated that courts must remain mindful of the balance between personal liberty and criminal process.

[Read Live Coverage]