Stringent Bail Conditions And Individual Liberty: A Constitutional Analysis
- IJLLR Journal
- 18 hours ago
- 2 min read
Kunal Bharne, LL.B., Government Law College, Mumbai
The Debate Surrounding
“Bail is the rule and Jail is the exception.” This is the basic principle underlying the doctrine of Criminal Jurisprudence. This is because Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures that life and personal liberty may not be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, stated that: “any law depriving a person of life or personal liberty must prescribe a procedure that is just, fair, reasonable, and not arbitrary or oppressive.” In doing so, it departed from the approach adopted in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, where it was held that the mere existence of a law was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of 'procedure established by law', irrespective of its fairness.
Even so, Parliament has purposefully enacted a separate system of criminal law for offences considered serious enough to deserve exceptional treatment. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; include stringent bail conditions and incorporate varying forms of “reverse burden” provisions, thereby limiting the ordinary protections available under general criminal law. The PMLA and NDPS Act expressly contain the contentious “twin condition” for bail, whereas the UAPA Act adopts a distinct but equally rigorous “prima facie” standard. All these acts deviate from the well-established principle of presumption of innocence. Once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions.
According to this paper, the strict nature of these laws is neither arbitrary nor oppressive; rather, they are designed to serve the ends of the criminal justice system, as timely upheld by supreme court. However, the stringent nature of these laws does not make them absolute; in fact, they remain subject to the constitutional limitations embodied under Article 21.
