Bail Reforms in India: Balancing Liberty and Justice

Leave a Comment / Legal Articles / By

Published On: December 17th 2025

Authored By: Sivasundhari N S
Sastra Deemed University

INTRODUCTION

Bail is the central component of India’s criminal justice system, carefully managing the individual’s rights and the society’s interests. In essence, it is not merely a procedural step, but it’s a constitutional promise that supports the principle that every person is innocent until proven guilty. Bail, whether allowed or refused, always has an impact on a person’s dignity, liberty, and livelihood. In a country where prisons are overcrowded, and most of the prisoners are undertrials, bail becomes more than a legal recourse it is a lifeline, a protection from unnecessary detention and the decline of freedom. Over the years, bail jurisprudence in India has gone through a process of transformation from strict formalism to a humane rights-based approach. Relying on the law of the land, the judgment of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) considered liberty only from the angle of legality. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977), and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980), to name a few, have not only redefined bail as a constitutional guarantee but also insisted that it should be just, reasonable, and respectful of human dignity. These changes were not only regarded as fair by legal logic but also as a step towards acknowledging the human suffering caused by the detention of prisoners without any valid reason. Public interest litigation, human rights activities, and judicial activism have increased the bail’s scope to a great extent, making it the protector against the state’s power misuse. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023’s adoption marks the beginning of a new chapter in bail reforms. The act aims to revamp the techniques used, decrease dependence on monetary sureties, and ensure bail practices comply with constitutional principles. The path is, however, still difficult. The rich-poor divide in society means that the poor still have a hard time getting bail. People who have to wait for their cases to be heard are left in custody because of the judicial delays. Although there is discretion in bail decisions, it is not consistent from one case to another, and tough conditions more often than not make bail almost impossible to get. These obstacles to bail reform signal that the issue is more than just updating the laws. In fact, it seems like justice is being redefined in such a way that it is simultaneously more humane, more accessible, and more faithful to the lives of the people it is designed to protect. This article takes a voyage through the progression of bail in India, details the systemic difficulties that are still there, and assesses recent reforms for one clear purpose: to discover a workable and decent balance between giving protection to an individual’s freedom and keeping the honesty of the judicial process intact.

WHAT IS BAIL 

Bail as per Section 2 of THE BHARATIYA NAGARIIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, is defined as

 (b) “bail” means a release of a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence from the law’s custody on certain conditions imposed by an officer or Court upon the performance by such person of a bond or a bail bond executed;

 Bailable or non-bailable offences can both lead to arrest. After the arrest procedure, the person in question, in the case of a non-bailable offence, is kept in a police station or jail. Depending on the severity of the case, it is possible to give bail only until the trial period is completed. The arrested individual is not supposed to be in jail until the end of the trial period; however, laws allow them to live outside jail, which is called bail, and there is an expectation that they should follow certain rules such as appearing in court when called, not committing the person who is acquainted with the facts and the case, not leaving the city without permission and other they adhering to what the court has thought about in this sense and fitting the context of the case additional clauses of the court etc.

 They are made to sign a bond or bail bond to make sure that the court conditions will be followed.
Bond
(e) “bond” means a personal bond or an undertaking for release without surety.

It means that the person personally signs an undertaking to adhere to the set conditions; otherwise, they are bound to compensate the court.

 Bail bond

 (d) “bail bond” means an undertaking for release with surety;

 The accused, along with a family member, friend, or relative, signs the undertaking and acts as a surety.

 According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “The release of a person from legal custody is procured by an undertaking that he shall appear at the time and place designated, submit himself to the jurisdiction, and judgment of the court.”

He points out that bail is not just a financial transaction but a legal mechanism of trust. It secures freedom, but at the same time, keeps the person accountable to the judicial process.

EVOLUTION OF BAIL AS A RIGHT

PHASE 1 PROCEDURAL FORMALISM

The landmark case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) was the one where the Supreme Court of India dealt with the constitutionality of preventive detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The appellant, A.K. Gopalan, a prominent communist leader, had been locked up without trial and hence had filed a writ petition challenging the legality of his detention, citing violations of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the newly adopted Constitution, which were his fundamental rights. The Court, however, within a narrow and formalistic conception of human rights, ruled that the detainment was valid as long as there was a “procedure established by law,” even if the law in question was severe or arbitrary. The Court took the interpretation of Article 21 as a standalone one, thus denying the concept of its conjunction with Articles 19 and 14. Consequently, bail as a relief of freedom was still seen only from a procedural point of view, not as a constitutional one. The judgment went further in placing individual liberty under the control of statutory procedure, thereby suggesting that if the law allowed arrest without a trial, then courts could not exercise their jurisdiction unless there was a breach of the procedure itself. This approach was repudiated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which declared that the procedure referred to in Article 21 had to be fair, just, and reasonable, thus providing bail with a constitutional guarantee connected to human dignity and personal freedom.

 The Supreme Court in the year 1977 established, through the case of State of Rajasthan vs Balchand, the most basic idea that the giving of bail is the norm, and going to jail is the exception. Balchand was released on bail, although convicted during the pendency of his appeals. A bail plea was filed by the state to set aside the bail, arguing that the presumption of innocence does not hold when a person is convicted. The judgment of the court was voiced by Justice Krishna Iyer, stating that the right to bail is not exhausted even after conviction and bail continues to be an essential component of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judge further said that courts should issue bail unless they have reasons to think that the accused may tamper with the evidence or use force against the people who know the facts of the case. The verdict was a point of transition that saw the system of justice moving beyond the idea that a person who has been accused or convicted would lose their liberty and instead, the system would have to maintain the dignity and liberty of the individual.

 By the SC judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977), the concept of bail law was redefined to its core: “bail is the rule, jail the exception.” In the matter, Balchand was convicted during the pendency of the appeal, and he was released on bail. The bail was challenged by the state because the presumption of innocence applies to persons who have not been convicted. The Court’s verdict, as given by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, was that the right to bail as an essential part of the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 is retained even after conviction. The Court held that bail should be released in the normal course unless the court is convinced that the accused may abscond, tamper with the evidence, or threaten the witnesses in the matter. This judgment made a turning point in the criminal justice system from a retributive to a rights-based one, and the ruling has been instrumental in subsequent cases, especially those involving pre-trial detention, asserting the necessity of the court’s weighing the societal interest against constitutional guarantees.

PHASE 2 HUMAN RIGHTS EXPANSION

 The 1980 case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab changed the impact the Indian courts had on anticipatory bail cases significantly. The incident involved bail that can be requested before arrest if there is a suspicion of an unlawful arrest. Sibbia, a former minister, was concerned that in the politically charged atmosphere, he might be arrested to pay back his enemy. Thus, he went to the court with a request for anticipatory bail. The matter was referred to a Supreme Court seven-judge bench, indicating a question of such significance.
The Court made it explicit that a motor of bail does not go with it a permanent vehicle of safety that keeps one secure from all evil. Instead, it is a protection against the violation of individual rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The judges were against dishing out strict rules like “you should surrender first” or “the bail will last for a certain period only”. Actually, they said that such limitations defeated the whole idea of bail. The Court emphasised the most outstanding feature of the decision – judicial discretion – judges must weigh up the facts of each case properly to come to a conclusion which is fair rather than employing mechanical rules or succumbing to political pressure. The verdict conveyed the strong message of Indian democracy: freedom is one of the core values of the constitution, and courts have to uphold the individual’s dignity and freedom even if the state resorts to using its powers in an unfair way. As a result of the ruling, the practice of anticipatory bail still acts as a safeguard against the occurrence of arbitrary arrests and authority abuse.
In the late 1970s, a young lawyer named Kapila Hingorani lit a flame that spread through the conscience of the entire country. Her revelation to the Supreme Court was that in Bihar, thousands of undertrials were imprisoned for years, many of whom were only accused of minor offences. Some of them had already served in jail for a longer time than the maximum sentence for the crimes they were charged with.

 This is the story of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. The Supreme Court was shocked when it found out this reality. Justice P.N. Bhagwati and the bench declared unequivocally that the practice of imprisoning people in such a manner was an attack on Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is not just a luxury but a fundamental right.The judge, at the same time, announced something revolutionary for that period – a legal aid is not a charity or a privilege but a constitutional obligation of the State. Poor inmates should be provided with lawyers for their defence; otherwise, justice is only an illusion.The Court ruled that those undertrials who had already been in jail longer than their possible sentence should be released. Nevertheless, the bail issue had moved beyond the release of prisoners only to be recast as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary and prolonged imprisonment.It also marked the beginning of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, whereby common people and activists were empowered to file cases in courts on behalf of the voiceless followers. It was later that this had a bearing on the reforms in legal aid (such as the formation of NALSA) and the current judgments that are still influenced by it. For example, the Supreme Court decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) referred to the necessity of bail process simplification and the protection of dignity.

 The case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) was an instance where the Supreme Court intervened directly to safeguard the ordinary people against the state power that is usually overpowering. The origin of the chain of events was when D.K. Basu, a social activist, sent a letter to the Court reporting the widespread custodial violence and deaths all over India. The Court recognised this letter as a public interest case since it represented the silent victims of numerous atrocities. The judges said in no uncertain terms: torture and detention without due process are not only illegal but constitutional rights violations under Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, the very core of the Constitution. Fairness and dignity, they said, must be assured right from the point of arrest. In the absence of legal safeguards at that time, the court itself intervened and announced 11 golden guidelines for the police to facilitate their work. These guidelines were, for instance, informing a relative of the arrest, preparing a proper arrest memo, conducting regular health checks and keeping a register of custody. The guidelines were not mere formalities but ensured that the abusive parts were prevented, the authorities were held accountable through the transparency practice, and that police officers were reminded that even an accused person retained certain rights. The judgment powerfully reminded the State that liberty is not just a legal word on paper but a constitutional promise. And the government cannot allow its own officers to break that promise.
In the long term, D.K. Basu has become one of the foundations of human rights decisions in India. It has had a considerable impact on police reforms, made those in charge more responsible when people are in custody, and, most importantly, has gone a long way in creating a culture of procedural justice  under Article 21.

PHASE 3 RIGHTS CONSCIOUS REALISM

 The widely reported case of Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020) is probably the most recent example that personal freedom under Article 21 is of extreme importance. The famous journalist, Arnab Goswami, was suddenly jailed in a long-closed abetment to suicide case, which was reopened. His arrest sparked outrage, and the majority opinion was that the state machinery was misusing its power to shut down dissent by trying to gag him.Upon hearing the case, the Supreme Court justices did not restrict themselves to the technicalities alone. They inquired whether or not procedural issues or delays should deprive a person of his liberty? They responded with an unequivocal no. The Court allowed him interim bail, emphasising that the right to freedom should not be compromised because of a procedural delay.

 Moreover, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud even qualified his statement, intimating that the criminal justice system must not be the means through which the accused are harassed in the political arena. Suffice it to say that, according to him, the courts are not just spectators—they are the defenders of constitutional freedoms.The verdict was memorable as it marked a transition to what can be referred to as rights-conscious realism. The Court noted that justice is not merely a strict compliance with the procedure steps one after another—it is about safeguarding genuine human freedom when it is endangered. In the Court’s opinion, bail is not merely a legal recourse in the CrPC but rather a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention.Even today, this decision serves as a beacon instructing the judiciary in cases of political sensitivity that liberty is the foundation of the rule of law and must never be left unprotected.

 The Indian instance of Fahad Shah v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2022) is a telling example of courts progressively resisting the unreasonable employment of preventive detention laws in the country. The editor of The Kashmir Walla, Kashmiri journalist Fahad Shah, was arrested on the 8th of February 2022, charged with sedition, peddling public mischief, and offences under the stringent UAPA law. Although he was able to get bail from a special NIA court, the police continued to devise means to ensure that he did not leave their custody. They reissued the FIRs and kept him arrested all the time. At last, they resorted to the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), which permits incarceration without trial for as long as two years, thereby making the explanatory circumstance of continuous incarcerations with no real probability of liberation for Fahad. However, in April 2023, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir intervened and cancelled his detention under the PSA, thus clearly stating that the State had trespassed. The Court rebuked the officials for forever locking the opponents’ mouths by using preventive detention to their advantage and pointed out that only through procedural moves can Article 21 not be hoodwinked into giving way to the cherished cause of personal liberty. The judges said that preventive detention is a massive power, which should only be granted under the circumstances of necessity, proportionality, and fairness. The decision was not just about one person’s fate but also played a role in consolidating the democratic values of the press’s freedom and the procedural integrity practice that are both indispensable for a healthy polity. Fahad Shah’s case is, in fact, the judiciary’s next example firmly situated in a rights-conscious realism narrative where the Supreme Court protects liberty even in politically sensitive situations and not the least when silence is the State’s preferred option rather than dissent.

TYPES OF BAIL

REGULAR BAIL
Regular bail is the one that is given most often in case an individual is arrested and is in police or judicial custody. The purpose of the bail is not to declare the accused not guilty; it simply allows the person taken to jail to be released while the trial is ongoing. The concept is very simple but at the same time very meaningful: freedom should be limited only when it is necessary, and the accused is to be considered innocent until proven otherwise. BNSS, Section 478authorisess a magistrate to offer bail in cases where bail is not allowed, while Section 480 allocates the same powers to the High Court and Sessions Court. These sections are similar to those in the CrPC, i.e., 437 and 439, but with a greater focus on fairness and easy access to justice. Regular bail, therefore, acts as a link between the requirement of the court’s supervision and the constitutional assurance of personal liberty as per Article 21.

INTERIM BAIL
Interim bail is a kind of relief that is given only once the court asks for more time to decide on a regular bail or anticipatory bail application. In other words, it is a judicial tool of mercy which helps to stop the detention of a person who is not legally supposed to be detained while the judicial process is still going on. A person who is scared of being arrested or who has already been taken into custody and is waiting for his bail application to be considered is a good example. Stuck in the middle of the jail, he would be totally helpless, but an interim bail would come to his rescue and allow him to enjoy his freedom during this period of waiting. Even though a court that follows the BNSS model may not grant interim bail as a matter of course, such bail is still given at the discretion of the judges, who rely on Sections 478 and 480 as their source of authority. It shows how the judiciary tries to strike a balance between procedural rules and the requirement for taking a compassionate view, thus ensuring that nobody, due to the delay, suffers punishment in the same way as those convicted.

ANTICIPATORY BAIL
Anticipatory bail is a form of bail taken in advance as a protection against a possible arrest for a non-bailable offence that is feared. It is, however, not just a legal remedy; it is still a safeguard against arbitrary or wrongful arrests, especially in cases where the accusations might be politically motivated or out of revenge. In the BNSS, Section 482, acting as a replacement for the old CrPC 438, gives those individuals the power to petition the court preemptively before an arrest is made. The court can demand the fulfilment of certain conditions, such as the involvement of the person in the investigation, not interfering with the evidence, or being limited to a certain place or area. This type of bail is more than just a measure against disaster; it reflects the rescue of the constitution’s underlying principles: even before it is endangered, freedom must be safeguarded, and the law should not be an instrument of repression. Through anticipatory bail, the citizens are enabled to reach the protection required without the occurrence.

STATUTORY BAIL (DEFAULT BAIL / COMPULSORY BAIL)

 Statutory bail or default bail is a bail that is not at the court’s discretion, but it is a bail of right that comes automatically into operation in case of non-filing of a charge sheet by the investigating agency within the prescribed time. As per BNSS Section 187(2), this right comes into existence after: 

  • 90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of 10 years or more.
  • 60 days for all other kinds of offences.
    This clause is an effective control over the delay in investigations. It does not allow the State to keep the accused in custody without bringing a case against them or at least moving the case forward. Statutory bail mirrors the concept whereby liberty should not be held ransom to inefficiency or negligence. It is a constitutional safeguard that changes procedural time limits into rights that can be enforced, hence the idea of justice delayed is liberty denied is reaffirmed.

CHALLENGES UNDER BAIL REFORMS 

  • Overcrowding in Prison

If you were to look at an Indian jail, it would be hard to convince you that it is not a new home to the people who have not been found guilty of any crime but are packed in there beyond capacity, who are convicted inmates. These are people on trial and haven’t had their day in court yet. According to the data from the National Crime Records Bureau, they are the largest group among all the inmates. Most of them are in jail not because they are a threat to society, but because the system has not been efficient enough to decide their fate. It is often the case that bail, which should be a portal to freedom, becomes a far-off expectation. For these people, the time they spend away from courts is a slow loss of their self-respect, family ties, and future, even before a verdict is passed.

  • Socio-Economic Inequality

Suppose two individuals were accused of committing the same crime. One of them is wealthy, influential, and has a lawyer available at a moment’s notice. The other is struggling so much that he can barely afford to eat, let alone provide a bail bond. The first will be free in a matter of hours; however, the second will be stuck in custody for weeks, if not months. That is the uncomfortable reality of our bail system—it is not just a test of the case’s legal merit but also of your financial capabilities. The poor and marginalised are so hard done by that even if they are innocent, they are likely to be in jail just because they lack the money to pay for a bail bond or meet the monetary conditions. In a justice system, the right to freedom should never be treated like a privilege that only the few can afford.

  • Judicial Delays

Despite the fact that a person is eligible for bail, the waiting time for a hearing can be very long and sometimes feel endless. Courts are overburdened, and as a result, listings are getting postponed, and paperwork is moving at a slow pace. In the middle of such chaos, the accused is still in custody, hence the time is running by, but he/she is not free. These delays are not only procedural in nature; in fact, they are deeply humanised as they are about missed birthdays, unemployment, and family breakups. The Supreme Court has pointed out that liberty should not be taken away just because there are delays, but at the same time, a lot of lives are being slowly destroyed by the system without people noticing.

  • Misuse of Discretion

 Bail decisions ought to be based on the principles of fairness and integrity. Unfortunately, the outcome of a bail decision often depends on which court you happen to be in or the judge who is hearing your case. A bail release can be easily granted by one judge, while another will deny it for the same offence. Such differences in decision generate confusion and deposit a little faith in the underlying powers. In fact, this is the worst situation as it allows bias to creep in, be it consciously or not. Discretion becomes the factor that leads to the justice system being unpredictable when there is no structure in place. For the accused, the enigma can then be the difference between release and continued confinement. 

  • Harsh Bail Conditions

 At times, although bail is allowed, the limitations that go with it are so difficult that they end up being a total negation of the idea. High surety amounts, frequent police visits, and travel restrictions can be especially difficult for people with limited resources. Suppose that you are being released, but only if you can give two rich guarantors or go to a police station every other day. A large number of people find these requirements utterly unfeasible, which transforms bail into an optical illusion. Bail ought to be a means of passage into freedom, not a collection of obstacles.

 REFORM SUGGESTIONS

  • Law Commission of India – 268th Report (2017)

 The 268th Report of the Law Commission of India changed the bail reform conversation entirely. It recognised that the bail system in India is the main reason for the poor being disproportionately affected, and that it is a system that keeps people in jail before their trial and is not uniform. The report demanded that financial bail be replaced with bail based on risk assessment and that courts should assess a person’s risk of fleeing, being a threat to society, tampering with evidence, etc. Thus, it should be more than just the accused’s ability to provide sureties that matters. Moreover, the report also urged for statutory measures to be put in place to ensure that there is less discretion and that bail decisions reflect the constitutional guarantee of equality and freedom as per Article 21. Most of all, the report reframed the conversation around bail as one of justice rather than as a matter of privilege.

  • Supreme Court Directions – Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022)

 At the Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI hearing, the Supreme Court reinforced its previous position on bail: courts must not consider bail as an exception and arrests as the norm. The Court, inter alia, provided bail-granting process stage-wise guidelines in the situation of the completion of the investigation and the accused’s cooperation. Among others, it was stated that arrests carried out in a routine mechanical way and bail being antagonistically denied lead to Article 21’s spirit being harmed, while incarcerations going beyond capacity are the consequence. The Court sought judicial officers’ liberal and rights-conscious attitude, indirectly referring them to judicial bail being not a procedural formality but a constitutional mandate. The decision is still very influential in bail applications in the lower courts of India, especially trial courts.

  • BNSS 2023 New bail provisions 

 The BNSS, 2023, enacted the major changes from the colonial-era CrPC and has implemented several bail-related reforms. Major provisions such as Section 478 (Magistrate’s power to grant bail), Section 480 (High Court and Sessions Court’s power), and Section 482 (Anticipatory Bail) have the same characteristics as earlier laws but are more focused on speedy trials, digital monitoring, and procedural clarity.

Moreover, the BNSS has also come up with provisions to facilitate electronic tracking and biometric attendance so as to cut down the dependence on monetary sureties. These changes illustrate a shift towards a tech-savvy and modern bail system that is aimed at bringing down the number of undertrial incarcerations and at the same time making freedom more accessible—especially to those who are economically disadvantaged.

  • Standardised Bail Guidelines

Establishing bail guidelines that are uniform across different jurisdictions stands out as perhaps the most necessary bail reform. Bail decisions are gambles as they can differ dramatically depending on the judge, location, and even time of the day or week. This lack of consistency is a source of confusion and significantly erodes public trust. By applying standardised guidelines, bail can be granted using objective criteria—like the nature of the offence, risk assessment, and procedural compliance—as opposed to wholly relying on the subjective discretion of a judge. Besides this, the lawyers and the accused persons will also benefit from a more predictable system, whereby they will be able to plan their next moves more systematically. This will then strengthen the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law.

  • Use of Technology Instead of Monetary Surety

Consider a scenario where a GPS tracking device or biometrics would have been used instead of cash bail. The reform would change the availability of bail, especially for the poor, in an unimaginable way. Instead of requiring money or bonds, courts may ensure compliance through electronic monitoring- a process that allows the accused to attend the court without any financial burden. Several countries are already implementing this model, and it is in line with India’s call for digital justice delivery. Besides, it eliminates the chances of being exploited by professional sureties and middlemen, who might take advantage of the bail system, thus making it more people-friendly and inclusive.

  • Decriminalisation of Minor Offences

 Bail is in high demand mainly because of minor offences that lead to a high number of bail applications. Cases like these are a hindrance to the system as they reserve the jail space for people who have committed minor offences that, from another perspective, do not deserve a stay in prison. Authorities, by taking power from them, will use the approach where such wrongful acts will no longer be punishable by law, or better still, will be merely treated as civil offences. The number of cases related to bail, clogging the courts and jails, will drop. At the same time, it would stop the unnecessary practice of locking up, especially first-timers or low-risk offenders, thus taking the load of the justice system off serious crime cases.

  • Community-Based Bail Monitoring

 What if community-based bail monitoring relied on local organisations, NGOs, or family networks rather than depending solely on the police or monetary conditions? As a model, this method helps in building social accountability, exposing less isolation, and providing support for rehabilitation. For instance, a youth charged with a minor offence can be set free under the supervision of a community mentor or a legal aid worker. These models have been proven to be successful in the support of the restorative justice framework and could be adjusted to the socio-legal context of India, especially the rural and tribal areas.

CONCLUSION 

The bail is not something procedural in nature; it is a basic guarantee of a free lifestyle and one of the pillars of a fair and just criminal justice system. India’s path from procedural formalism to a rights-based approach eloquently shows the judiciary’s commitment to preserving human dignity and the freedom of every individual, even against the state authority. From Balchand to Fahad Shah, such landmark decisions are pointing out that freedom can never be sacrificed for the sake of convenience and that bail is an important weapon granting protection from being arbitrarily detained, the misuse of power, and the continuation of imprisonment. Despite their constitutional safeguards, there are difficulties that the system is facing. These include undertrial overcrowding, socio-economic disparities, the problem of judicial delays, and inconsistent discretionary practices, all of which cause the equitable application of bail to be undermined. Besides judicial guidelines and risk-based assessments, the reforms brought about by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provide a humane, transparent, and efficient method for the bail system.

 It all comes down to the main point that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, which should be the basis for all legal and policy works. The design of a contemporary bail should consider the safety of society as well as the freedom of the individual; thus, it should be a matter of justice not only in reality but in appearance as well. Through applying technology, following the standardised guidelines, and using community-based surveillance, India has the power to change bail from a simple legal process to a potent tool that is in keeping with human dignity while at the same time reflecting the constitutional promise of liberty and justice for all—one that is accountable and truly a sign of the constitutional promise of liberty and justice for all. 

REFEREENCES 

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Subscribe
Scroll to Top