Justice delayed is justice denied, but sometimes, justice granted becomes justice mocked.”
Introduction
In recent years, the public conscience has been rattled by instances where individuals accused of heinous, cold-blooded crimes are granted bail and allowed to walk free pending trial. From gruesome murders to brutal sexual assaults, the question arises again and again—how can such offenders secure bail so easily in a legal system meant to protect the innocent and punish the guilty?
This blog aims to dissect the legal framework, judicial discretion, and systemic loopholes that enable such bail orders—and why society often sees this as a betrayal of justice.
What the Law Says About Bail in Heinous Offences
Under Indian law, bail is not a right but a discretionary relief, especially in cases involving serious charges. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) categorizes offenses as:
- Bailable: Bail is a matter of right.
- Non-bailable: Bail is at the discretion of the court.
Crimes such as murder (Section 302 IPC), rape (Section 376 IPC), terrorism, or acid attacks are classified as non-bailable offenses due to their severity. Yet, even in these cases, the courts may grant bail if certain conditions are met.
The Reasoning Behind Granting Bail—Even to the Worst
Courts consider multiple factors before granting bail, including:
- Prima facie evidence against the accused
- Possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
- Likelihood of the accused fleeing
- Past criminal record
- Seriousness of the charge vs. right to liberty
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly stated that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” emphasizing the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
However, this principle—designed to prevent unjustified pretrial incarceration—often clashes with the public’s sense of justice when applied to those accused of horrifying acts.
High-Profile Cases That Shook Public Confidence
Several cases have ignited public outrage due to bail being granted to accused individuals with seemingly overwhelming evidence of brutality:
- A rape accused was granted bail on the ground of “marrying the victim”—raising moral and legal concerns about coercion.
- Accused murderers were granted bail, citing delays in filing charge sheets or medical grounds.
- A politician’s son was let out despite being caught on video mowing down protesters.
These instances aren’t just legal debates—they send a message that status, money, and manipulation can tilt the scales of justice.
Systemic Gaps That Enable Such Bail Orders
- Delay in Investigation & Filing of Charges: Police may fail to file charges within the mandated time, weakening the prosecution’s case.
- Weak Prosecution: Poor legal strategy, lack of evidence presentation, or unprepared prosecution counsel contribute to bail grants.
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 747 Law student Priyadarshini Mattoo was stalked, raped, and murdered by Santosh Kumar Singh, a law student and son of a senior IPS officer. Despite substantial evidence, he was acquitted in 1999 by the trial court. The court claimed lack of direct evidence. The judge, however, mentioned that the accused was probably guilty, but the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
After intense media pressure and a CBI appeal, the Delhi High Court convicted him in 2006, a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court.
- Judicial Backlog: With over 4 crore pending cases in Indian courts, judges often grant bail to reduce overcrowding in jails.
- Misuse of Medical Grounds: The accused claims poor health and exploits medical loopholes to secure interim bail or parole.
- Witness Hostility: Fear, bribes, or intimidation turn witnesses hostile, damaging the strength of the case at the bail stage.
Ajay Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 464, Bail was granted despite video evidence; it was cancelled only after strong Supreme Court intervention, showing how local courts may act under pressure or err in judgment.
- State v. Manu Sharma (Jessica Lal Murder Case) Frequent parole grants, VIP treatment in jail, and eventual premature release in 2020 citing “reform.” This case was a landmark in public activism (led to the launch of the “Justice for Jessica” campaign), but post-conviction privileges and early release showed how power influences even life sentences.
Public Outrage vs. Legal Realism
When a cold-blooded killer or serial rapist is seen walking out of prison while the victim’s family still mourns or lives in fear, public outrage is natural.
CBI v. Kuldeep Singh Sengar, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1457 A minor girl was raped by then BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar in 2017 (Uttar Pradesh). After the rape, the girl and her family repeatedly approached authorities, but no action was taken. Sengar was initially not arrested due to his political influence. After public outrage, he was arrested, but the co-accused got bail. While on bail, the co-accused threatened and attacked the victim’s family. Her father was arrested on false charges and died in custody. In July 2019, the victim, her aunt, and her lawyer were hit by a truck in a suspicious “accident.” Two aunts died, and the girl was critically injured. The victim’s mother and lawyer pleaded with the courts for protection. The Supreme Court transferred the case to Delhi, citing real threats. Sengar was convicted and sentenced to life.
But judges are bound by evidence, not emotion. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty remains the bedrock of criminal law. The judiciary cannot punish an accused solely on public perception or media trials.
Need for Reform: Where Do We Go From Here?
- Stringent Bail Laws for Heinous Crimes: Amendments needed to restrict bail in cases with strong prima facie evidence of brutality.
- Fast-Track Courts: Speedy trials in heinous crimes ensure bail doesn’t become a tool to delay justice.
- Victim Participation: Letting victims’ voices be heard during bail hearings, as in some Western jurisdictions.
- Accountability for Investigating Officers: Delay or negligence in evidence collection should lead to strict departmental action.
- Specialised Prosecution Teams: For heinous crimes, deploy trained and dedicated prosecutors who can resist flimsy bail pleas.
Conclusion:
The criminal justice system must constantly walk a tightrope between protecting the rights of the accused and delivering justice to victims. When cold-hearted criminals secure bail due to technicalities, it shakes people’s faith in the rule of law.
Bail should never become a shelter for the savage, nor should liberty serve as a license for the brutal. The time is ripe for a nuanced, victim-sensitive, and reform-oriented approach that ensures real justice is neither blind nor blindfolded.
“Bail is a shield, not a sword. Let us not turn mercy into menace.
Contributed by Aditi Kaushik, intern