Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. This was observed by a city court while granting bail to a police officer in a bribery case. It further stated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship.
Additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav
said the object of granting bail to an accused was neither punitive nor
preventive in nature. Constable Dinesh Kumar Saini was granted bail on
furnishing a bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety of like amount.
The true object behind granting bail is
to secure the appearance of the accused during trial. Apart from the
question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose
sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction
has substantial punitive content. It would be
improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of
former conduct, whether the accused has been convicted for it or not,” the judge noted in the order dated February 14.
The court said the law was fairly settled that an accused couldn’t be kept in custody as a measure of punishment without trial. “Merely because an economic offence has been alleged, the accused does not become disentitled for grant of bail if substantial evidence has already been collected,” it added. It noted that the alleged bribe amount of Rs 39,000 also stood seized.
The
judge said Saini, being a government servant, was not a flight risk
and investigation appeared to be almost complete. It added that the
prosecution’s apprehension that the accused, being a cop, would threaten
the complainant or try to influence the witnesses “seemed somewhat
unfounded and unsubstantiated”.
It was noted that the cop was in
judicial custody since January 23, 2022. He couldn’t remain in jail
merely because the
FSL report and expert’s opinion was yet to be
received and statements of complainant and witness(es) yet to be recorded.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks