<p>The Supreme Court has reiterated the right position on the grant of bail and made some useful proposals and observations about it, obviously because the principle governing it is not being observed and implemented. The court has for many decades asserted that bail is a matter of right for the accused and should be the norm, and jail should be the exception. But lakhs of people are in jail without getting bail even for minor offences and their cases await trial and judgement for years.</p>.<p>The court has made the suggestion that the government should enact a separate law to streamline the process of granting bail. It has also ruled that regular applications for bail should be decided in the normal course within two weeks and those for anticipatory bail within six weeks. It has also directed the states and UTs to follow due process and comply with the relevant sections of the CrPC before arresting people. </p>.<p>There are clear provisions on the grant of bail and past judgements and directions of the Supreme Court on the matter, and there is not much to add to them. The court has always underlined the need to go by the doctrine of three tests on bail. According to this, an accused should be granted bail if they do not present a flight risk and are not likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses</p>.<p>. There is also the judgement in Arnesh Kumar vs Bihar, 2014, which directed all police officers to satisfy themselves that any arrest that they make is based on the parameters laid down in the CrPC. It is not known what a separate law can do beyond this, but it can perhaps prescribe specific processes and procedures to be followed in the matter. The court has spelt out some norms in its order. These and other similar processes can be given legal endorsement and legislative support. </p>.<p>But the question is whether a separate law would be of any more use than the present system if it is not supported by the right intent. What is needed more than a new law is a change of mindset. A culture that accepts the rights of citizens and the principle that no one is guilty till proved so would not need a new law on bail. A law will not be of use in a culture that does not accept it, either. In any case, it is doubtful if the government will take any initiative to frame such a law. The court’s warning that indiscriminate arrests would create the impression of a police state is important in this context. Bail provisions are dead letters in a police state.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has reiterated the right position on the grant of bail and made some useful proposals and observations about it, obviously because the principle governing it is not being observed and implemented. The court has for many decades asserted that bail is a matter of right for the accused and should be the norm, and jail should be the exception. But lakhs of people are in jail without getting bail even for minor offences and their cases await trial and judgement for years.</p>.<p>The court has made the suggestion that the government should enact a separate law to streamline the process of granting bail. It has also ruled that regular applications for bail should be decided in the normal course within two weeks and those for anticipatory bail within six weeks. It has also directed the states and UTs to follow due process and comply with the relevant sections of the CrPC before arresting people. </p>.<p>There are clear provisions on the grant of bail and past judgements and directions of the Supreme Court on the matter, and there is not much to add to them. The court has always underlined the need to go by the doctrine of three tests on bail. According to this, an accused should be granted bail if they do not present a flight risk and are not likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses</p>.<p>. There is also the judgement in Arnesh Kumar vs Bihar, 2014, which directed all police officers to satisfy themselves that any arrest that they make is based on the parameters laid down in the CrPC. It is not known what a separate law can do beyond this, but it can perhaps prescribe specific processes and procedures to be followed in the matter. The court has spelt out some norms in its order. These and other similar processes can be given legal endorsement and legislative support. </p>.<p>But the question is whether a separate law would be of any more use than the present system if it is not supported by the right intent. What is needed more than a new law is a change of mindset. A culture that accepts the rights of citizens and the principle that no one is guilty till proved so would not need a new law on bail. A law will not be of use in a culture that does not accept it, either. In any case, it is doubtful if the government will take any initiative to frame such a law. The court’s warning that indiscriminate arrests would create the impression of a police state is important in this context. Bail provisions are dead letters in a police state.</p>