Should The Court Of Magistrate Have The Jurisdiction To Grant Bail In Offences That Are Punishable By Death Or Life Imprisonment?
Shivali Bajaj & Aishwarya, O.P Jindal Global University
“The court is the bureaucracy of the law. If you bureaucratise popular justice, then you give it the form of a court.” - Michel Foucault
ABSTRACT
The seriousness of the crime, the risk of the accused fleeing, the potential for the accused to tamper with evidence, the accused's past behaviour, as well as the accused person's health, age, and gender, all play a role. In evaluating if an offence is bailable, it must be determined if bail is permissible for Non- Bailable Offenses. Since interpretation is subjective, India's legal system must consider its applicability in different settings. Different courts have construed "death or life" differently, creating legal ambiguity. This variation in reading of the clause has generated confusion in the scope of powers of a Magistrate to grant bail in offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This article discusses the range of authority that is granted to a "magistrate" by Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. More specifically, the paper implies that even a Magistrate has the authority to grant bail in situations like these, and that this authority ought to be fully addressed and is to be utilised in order to avoid unnecessary pre-trial detention and docket-explosion in Sessions Court and the High Court.
Keywords: Magistrate, Non-bailable offence, Death penalty, life imprisonment, severity of offense, Bail, fast-track trial, Section 437, Reformation of accused.
