'Bail rule, jail exception' principle forgotten in recent past, says CJI Gavai
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai lamented that in the recent past, the principle of "bail is the rule, and jail is the exception" has been forgotten. Though judicial pronouncements over the decades have integrated this norm, it has not been implemented in true spirit in recent years, he said.
Delivering the Justice V R Krishna Iyer Memorial Law Lecture in Kochi on Sunday, the CJI said he tried to reestablish the principle while granting bail in various cases, paving the way for high courts and lower courts to follow suit.
"I am happy to state that I had the opportunity in the last year, 2024, to reiterate this legal principle in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha, Manish Sisodia, and Kavita vs ED," Justice Gavai said.
Justice Iyer's contribution was immense in protecting the rights of marginalised communities, he said.
The SC in recent years passed a series of orders to protect the rights of undertrial prisoners and held that delay in trial and long incarceration were grounds to grant bail even in serious offences under the PMLA and the UAPA, A, despite stringent bail conditions under the special laws. It opened the gate for bail to accused in money launder- ing and unlawful activities cases.
The CJI also recalled Justice Iyer's strong opposition to undertrials being kept in jail for long periods without trial. In an important ruling in Aug last year, SC had held that the conventional idea of 'bail is the rule, jail is an exception' should be applicable not only to IPC offences but also to other offences for which special statutes have been enacted, such as UAPA, if the conditions prescribed under that law are fulfilled.
SC in its various orders had appealed to HCs and lower courts to be liberal in granting bail and asked them not to hesitate in granting the relief in serious offences also if a case is made out for bail.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Enforcement directorate attaches assets worth ₹681 crore of Ramprastha group
NEW DELHI: Colonies and plots spread across more than 1,900 acres, worth over Rs 680 crore, of the Ramprastha real estate group in Gurugram have been attached in a case linked to alleged fraud with homebuyers, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) said on Saturday. A provisional order has been issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) in a case against Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd (RDDPL) and its group companies, the federal agency said in a statement. The attached properties include plotted colonies of Ramprastha City measuring 226 acres in Sectors 37D, Sector 92 and 95 in Gurugram and land parcels measuring 1,700 acres in Basai, Gadoli Kalan, Hayatpur and Wazipur in Gurugram. The total value of these assets is 681.54 crore, the agency said. Neither the company nor its directors could be contacted for a response to the ED action against them. The money laundering case stems from multiple FIRs filed by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi and Haryana Police based on complaints of numerous homebuyers against RPDPL and its promoters, like Arvind Walia, Balwant Chaudhary and Sandeep Yadav, for their "failure" to deliver promised flats and plots within the promised timeframes, the ED said. Probe found, the ED said, that various projects of RPDPL, such as Project Edge, Project Skyz, Project Rise and Ramprastha City (in various sectors of Gurugram) were launched during 2008-2011 and possession of flats/plotted lands are yet to be given even after lapse of more than 14-17 years. The company collected about Rs 1,100 crore from more than 2,000 homebuyers for the said projects, but the promoters and directors of the company "diverted" these funds to its group companies as advances for purchase of land parcels, etc, instead of using them for completion of promised homes, it said.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
STF nabs fugitive rapist carrying Rs 50,000 bounty
Lucknow: The Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) on Saturday arrested a convicted rapist, Mohammad Zaid Khan alias Sameer, who had been absconding after escaping court custody. He was nabbed near Tomar Cold Storage on the Lucknow-Mall Road in Hardoi district. Zaid Khan (35), son of the late Aslam Khan and a resident of Yameen Ganj under the Saadatganj police station area, had been sentenced to 20 years in jail in a 2013 POCSO case involving kidnapping and gang rape. He was also facing charges under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376D, and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. During a court appearance on June 18, 2025, the accused gave police personnel the slip and fled. Following this, a fresh case (FIR No. 158/2025 under Section 262 of the BNS) was registered at Wazirganj police station, and two constables — Farid Ahmed and Muqeem — were suspended for negligence, the STF said. DSP, STF, Deepak Kumar Singh was tasked with tracking him down. "During intelligence gathering, it was discovered that Zaid was threatening a real estate builder in Lucknow's Thakurganj area, demanding Rs 14 lakh and issuing death threats. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure your family's future! ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo Acting on a tip-off, an STF team laid a trap in coordination with local police," said Singh. During interrogation, Zaid, who carried a Rs 50,000 bounty, admitted that he had arranged a weapon to kill the Thakurganj builder, who he claimed owed him money. Police also recovered a .32 bore pistol, two live cartridges, one spent cartridge of the same calibre, a mobile phone, a bag, and Rs 1,220 in cash from his possession.
India Gazette
3 hours ago
- India Gazette
Young India involved in money laundering, sufficient grounds to take cognisance, argues ASG
New Delhi [India], July 12 (ANI): In rebuttal arguments before the Rouse Avenue court on Saturday, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju said that Young Indian was involved in money laundering and continues to be involved. Raju asserted that there were sufficient grounds to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint against all accused persons in the National Herald money laundering case. After hearing the arguements of ASG Raju, Special Judge Vishal Gogne listed the matter for clarification from the defence counsel on July 14. In his rebuttal arguments on the second day, ASG submitted that the donors who donated to AICC were cheated and duped. 'Who gave donation were given ticket,' ASG referred to statement of the witness. He submitted that Young Indian was a bogey for money laundering. Neither of the donors was aware of Young Indian, nor its objectives. ASG further submitted that some of the people gave donations on the instructions of senior Congress leaders. He also submitted that the Young Indian was not carrying on the activities in furtherance of its objectives. 'Young Indian was doing money laundering, still doing', ASG argued. 'Young Indian gave Rs 50 Lakh out of Rs. One crore loan from Dotex,' ASG further said. On the point of recovery of debt, ASG argued that the right to recover debt is an actionable claim. The right to recover is a property. They (Accused) have the right to recover Rs 90 crores by paying mere Rs. 50 Lakh. 'Why charitable institutions invest Rs. 50 lakh to recover Rs. 90 crore when it was not recoverable,' ASG said, adding, 'Young Indian gave Rs. 50 Lakh to AICC and AICC gave the right to recover a debt of Rs. 90 crores.' 'You (accused) misrepresented the donors who donated to the AICC,' ASG argued. It was submitted by the ASG that Young Indian was formed on November 23, 2010. On December 13, 2010, Rahul Gandhi was appointed the director of Young Indian. ASG submitted that without investing a single penny in AJL, the Young Indian became the owner of assets worth Rs. 1910 crore. He added that there was cheating with the other shareholders of AJL. It is a total fraud. As per the balance sheet of Associated Journal Limited (AJL), there were assets of Rs. 2000 crores and a liability of Rs. 90 crores, ED said. ASG submitted that debt recovery is a form of property. On the point of share acquisition, it submitted that the Allotment of shares constitutes the acquisition. In this case, shares were not transferred; instead, they were acquired. Later, these shares were transferred to Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. Regarding the role of accused persons, it was submitted that Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey, and Sam Pitroda were directors of Young Indian. They were in charge of conducting the business of the company. On the point of commision of an allegation by the company, ED submitted that when an offence by the company triggers section 70 of PMLA. Then every person responsible for the conduct of their business will be liable for the offence. It was submitted that Sonia Gandhi, at the time when the contravention of PMLA was committed, was responsible and was in charge of Young Indian for the conduct of the business of the company. At the time of payment of Rs. 50 lakhs, Sonia Gandhi, as a director, was responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company. The ASG Raju submitted that the payment of Rs 50 lakhs to AICC by Young Indian was made after Rahul Gandhi became a Director in Young Indian. He further submitted that when the contravention of PMLA was committed, Rahul Gandhi was incharge of the conduct of the business of Young Indian. ED submitted that all the averments required are there in the Complaint against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda. Cognisance needs to be taken, ASG submitted. He further argued that Dotex Merchandise is merely an entry provider. Somebody gave cash and it gave a cheque of Rs. One crore. No inquiry was made in relation to business, ASG Raju said. It was further submitted that the loan was for one year. There was no guarantee taken, no collateral taken. The loan was recovered when a complaint was filed by Dr. Subramaniam Swamy. It was returned in 2015. The loan was given at a 14 per cent interest rate. Rs 14 lakh was the interest for the loan of Rs one crore for one year. Interest was not debited or credited in the books. On the point of jurisdiction, the ASG submitted that unless there is a specific bar, anyone can invoke the jurisdiction. Anyone can move to the court; a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had said. He submitted that the accused might have committed an offence, which is sufficient to frame a charge. So the threshold of taking cognisance is much less. (ANI)
