From Presumption Of Innocence To Presumption Of Guilt? A Comparative Study Of Bail Jurisprudence Under NDPS, PMLA, MCOCA And UAPA
- IJLLR Journal
- 2 days ago
- 1 min read
Dnyaneshwari Satyen Hadawale, B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons), University of Mumbai Law Academy
ABSTRACT
The law of bail in India has historically been based on the fundamental premise that the accused is deemed to be innocent till he or she is proved guilty and that imprisonment prior to conviction should continue to remain an exception rather than the rule. This is because under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the presumption of personal liberty ensures that the criminal trial process cannot per se become punitive in nature. However, the passage of specific criminal laws like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has changed this paradigm completely.
These criminal laws incorporate very strict bail provisions involving the “twin conditions” test and the “prima facie true” test, thus drastically limiting judicial discretion and placing the reverse onus on the accused in the pre-trial stage. The paper will provide an analysis on how these statutory provisions amount to a definite change in the presumption of innocence, especially at the bail stage, with special reference to the Indian Constitution. Thus, the study involves a comparative and doctrinal analysis of these laws.
