Supreme Court’s Three Strikes on Bail: A Strong Message for Courts and Investigative Agencies
Supreme Court’s Stance on Bail:
The Supreme Court of India reiterated that bail should be the norm, even in cases involving stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The court’s recent decisions to grant bail in three high-profile cases—those of Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and an aide of Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren—underline this principle.
Lessons for Courts and Agencies:
The SC’s decisions serve as a strong message to both investigative agencies and lower courts to follow due process and prioritize the liberty of individuals, even in serious cases.
The SC criticized the quality of investigations, particularly when bail is resisted without solid evidence that would stand up at trial.
K Kavitha’s Bail:
The SC granted bail to K Kavitha, daughter of BRS chief KC Rao, in cases related to the Delhi liquor policy, challenging the Delhi High Court’s previous denials.
The court emphasized that investigators cannot oppose bail based on evidence that will only be relevant during the trial.
Critique of Investigative Practices:
The SC questioned the reliability of evidence presented by investigative agencies, cautioning that poor-quality evidence and arbitrary decisions, like the selection of witnesses, could jeopardize trials.
Case Law Implications:
In bailing Soren’s aide, the SC reaffirmed its stance that PMLA’s Section 45 does not imply that denying bail should be the norm.
The court’s comments, though not legal precedents, are crucial lessons for law enforcement and judiciary bodies, urging them to consider due process and fair investigation in all cases.
Fair Process for Undertrials:
The SC’s observations offer hope for undertrials accused under stringent laws, ensuring that their right to bail is not unduly denied.
These decisions reflect a broader commitment to balancing the needs of justice with individual liberties.
