SC: Loss of reputation ground for bail
Giving a liberal interpretation to Article 21 of the Constitution which protects citizens’ right to life and liberty, the Supreme Court has recognised the “loss of reputation” as a ground for seeking anticipatory bail by an accused person even as his petition for the regular bail remains pending before the court.
“In view of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of reputation to every person”, an accused person has a right to apply for the anticipatory bail simultaneously with the regular bail, a bench of Justices Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur had ruled.
The Supreme Court said if such an application for anticipatory bail is filed before the trial court, the presiding judge “will have to decide it on the same day while the regular bail may remain pending for disposal.”
The only condition attached for deciding the anticipatory bail was that the trial court would decide it on its “own merits” in accordance with the law.
The aspect of “reputation” and disposal of the anticipatory bail on the same day when filed is being seen as a new development so far as the accused person’s right to life and liberty is concerned as it is being considered a “very liberal” interpretation given to Article 21.
“We wish to reiterate that the inherent power to grant the bail is the power to grant interim bail, pending final disposal of the (regular) bail application,” Justice Katju, heading the bench recorded in an order in a case related to right of an accused for interim bail.
The order came on a petition of Balbir Singh from Punjab, who faced immanent arrest in a case, but claimed himself to be “innocent” and being “framed” up at the behest of some powerful people.
Balbir Singh’s counsel Manoher Singh Bakshi argued that once a person, who is being “wrongly framed” in a case, is arrested, he is bound to suffer “irreparable loss to his reputation” in the society, particularly among his relatives, therefore, he has a right under Article 21 of the Constitution to seek immediate anticipatory bail while his regular bail petition may remain pending for detailed hearing.
Mr Bakshi argued that if during argument on regular bail it emerged from the investigation the accused was actually involved in the alleged act of crime, the court has every right to cancel is “anticipatory” bail and send him to jail.
“But the arrest before proper examination of the facts of the case by the court and denying the accused the right to explain his position properly to his lawyers would cause irreparable damage to his reputation in the society. In such a situation the accused person has every right to invoke the protection of Article 21,” Mr Bhakshi had argued.
Post new comment