The Supreme Court has expressed concern over
the increasing number of appeals challenging bail orders, observing that
prosecutors should focus on securing convictions rather than routinely seeking
cancellation of bail. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant,
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana made the
observations while refusing to cancel the bail granted to Chaitanya Baghel,
son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in the alleged liquor
scam.
Justice Bagchi remarked that excessive emphasis on
opposing bail diverts attention from the prosecution's primary responsibility
of conducting effective investigations and securing convictions. He noted that
declining conviction rates and the large number of undertrial prisoners
highlight the need to strengthen the criminal justice system instead of
frequently approaching the Supreme Court against interlocutory bail orders.
The Bench reiterated that Article 136 is not
intended to correct every legally flawed bail order and that interference
should be limited to cases where continued liberty seriously affects the
administration of justice. The Court also observed that bail matters should
ordinarily be resolved by High Courts and expressed concern over lengthy bail
orders, particularly in cases under the PMLA and UAPA,
emphasizing that such orders should be reasoned without becoming excessively
detailed.
While declining to interfere with the bail granted to
Chaitanya Baghel, the Court expunged certain adverse remarks made by the
Chhattisgarh High Court against the prosecution, holding them to be
unnecessary. It also kept open the broader legal issue concerning the
requirement of prior judicial permission for further investigation in complaint
cases, stating that the question would be decided in an appropriate future
matter.
0 Comments