In a recent groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court declared that the grant of bail for a limited period, following the conclusion that an individual is entitled to bail, is a violation of constitutional rights. The court emphasized that such practices infringe upon the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and unjustly burden the litigant by necessitating a fresh bail application for an extension.
The case in question involved an appellant charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Orissa High Court acknowledged the prolonged incarceration of the appellant without the prospect of a trial conclusion and consequently determined his entitlement to bail. However, the High Court granted only interim bail for 45 days, prompting the appellant to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, comprising the bench, expressed their dissatisfaction with the High Court’s practice of granting interim bail after recognizing an individual’s entitlement to bail. The Apex Court criticized this trend, citing several instances from the same High Court where bail was granted for short durations after determining the accused’s eligibility for release.
The Supreme Court, in response, modified the High Court’s order, directing that the appellant be granted bail until the final disposal of the case. This landmark ruling challenges the prevailing approach to bail duration and underscores the importance of upholding constitutional liberties in the criminal justice system.
[Criminal Appeal No.3633 of 2023: Manoranjan Rout v. State of Odisha]
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
