The finest sentiments were expressed and the highest legal principles invoked in a Delhi court last week to grant bail to former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a case related to allegations of sexual harassment by six women wrestlers.
Also Read | A charge-sheet, finally. Hope for justice?
But the court’s decision is questionable on very legitimate grounds. Though bail is the norm and the accused have a right to it, it is denied when there is a possibility that the accused would influence witnesses and tamper with evidence. Brij Bhushan Singh has been accused of trying to influence witnesses and even the victims who have made the charges. One minor who had accused him of misconduct later withdrew the charge. There is suspicion that it was because of pressure. He is a ruling party MP and a powerful person and is in a position to subvert the case. The court said no person should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with evidence, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. But there are extraordinary circumstances in this case.
The court pointed out that the police did not oppose the bail plea. It said the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) only said that the bail plea should be decided in accordance with the known directions of the Supreme Court. This was strange coming from the police which normally believes that jail is the norm and bail the exception. It should be noted that the police had refused to file an FIR in the case and did so only on directions from the Supreme Court. Through the entire course of the case so far, it has been clear that its sympathies lay with Brij Bhushan Singh. The court said that the investigating agency had not expressed any apprehension that the accused would abuse his position or try to tamper with evidence. It is not surprising that the police took that position in this case, but it is unfortunate that it was accepted by the court. It should be noted that the charges against him are extremely serious.
The court said that it would be 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. It also rightly felt that Article 21 is violated when undertrial prisoners are indefinitely detained in jail. But the question is whether these principles can rightly be applied in Brij Bhushan Singh’s case. There is genuine concern whether the granting of bail to him would serve the ends of justice. Justice should be seen to be done in every case, especially in cases in which powerful people are involved.