NEW DELHI: Granting bail to former Wrestling Federation of India chief and BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, a Delhi court has observed that it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that a person should be punished in a case in which he has not been convicted.The court of additional chief metropolitan magistrate Harjeet Singh Jaspal had on Thursday granted bail to Singh and another accused in the case related to allegations of sexual harassment by six wrestlers.The court said in its order that the law of the land was equal for all and cannot tilt in favour of the victims or the accused.
In the instant case, the allegations are serious.
In my view, the seriousness of the allegations, no doubt, is one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but it is not the only test or factor to decide the same.
When undertrial prisoners are detained in jail for an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated, said the ACMM, citing observations of Supreme Court in a case.
At this stage, no purpose will be served by taking the accused persons in custody.The court added in the order, released on Friday, that it would be improper to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson, the court remarked.The apex court had further opined, points out the order, that in this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which he has not been convicted, or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.Stating that it is settled law, as has been laid down and abundantly reiterated by the higher courts in many judicial pronouncements, that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail, the court observed: The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.The court pointed out that additional public prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastava has not even opposed the bail; his simple submission is that it must be decided in accordance with directions of the Honble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (case).
It added: At no stage, the investigating agency, speaking through the learned APP, has expressed its apprehension that the accused persons are abusing their positions or are making attempts to tamper with evidence.
What has been conveyed is that sufficient conditions must be imposed to the extent that the accused persons do not, directly or indirectly, approach the victims so as to influence them.The court also noted that the APP, appearing for Delhi Police, had submitted that the accused be dealt as per law and he has placed on record the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Satender Kumar Antil vs.
CBI (case), further praying that if bail was granted, conditions be imposed to ensure that the accused do not influence the victims/witnesses.