The Supreme Court has adopted a more lenient approach regarding bail for convicts, ruling that even individuals serving life sentences can be granted bail while their appeals are pending, provided they have a reasonable chance of acquittal in a higher court. This significant decision was made by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan.
The ruling was applied in the case of a Tamil Nadu police officer convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for a custodial death that allegedly occurred in 1999. The court suspended his sentence, granting him bail after senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Anand Verma highlighted contradictions in the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses.
The Supreme Court clarified that when considering the suspension of a life imprisonment order, the considerations differ from those of fixed sentences. In cases involving fixed-term sentences, appellate courts may be more inclined to grant bail unless exceptional circumstances warrant denial. However, in life imprisonment cases, the appellate court should assess whether there is palpable evidence or something evident on the record that suggests the appellant has a fair chance of succeeding in their appeal and ultimately being acquitted.
The court stated its initial view was that the oral evidence presented by different prosecution witnesses was in direct conflict regarding material aspects. The bench reiterated the established legal principle that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness if that testimony is deemed wholly reliable. Conversely, if the eyewitness's testimony is found to be entirely unreliable, it can be discarded entirely. The court also noted a third possibility: if the court finds the evidence of a solitary eyewitness to be neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, corroboration in material particulars must be present.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of granting bail based solely on parity with co-accused individuals. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh overturned a decision by the Allahabad High Court that granted bail to two accused in a murder case based on parity alone. The Supreme Court clarified that the "position" of an accused refers to their specific role in the crime, not merely their involvement in the same offense. The court emphasized that bail orders must contain reasons and cannot be passed mechanically or solely on the principle of parity.
The Supreme Court has also shown concern regarding the number of pending criminal appeals in High Courts, as well as the amount of time convicts serve while their appeals remain unresolved. In cases where convicts have served a substantial portion of their sentence and their appeals are unlikely to be heard in the near future, appellate courts can consider releasing them on bail.
The Supreme Court's recent rulings underscore a commitment to protecting the rights of accused individuals while also considering the gravity of the offenses. The court has made it clear that while bail is generally the rule, it is not an automatic right and should be granted judiciously, considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
