Home Supreme Court of India Supreme Court Flags Concerns Over Bail Delays in Minor Offences, Questions Prolonged Incarceration
Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Flags Concerns Over Bail Delays in Minor Offences, Questions Prolonged Incarceration

Share
Share

The Supreme Court on Monday raised serious concerns over the delays in granting bail to individuals accused of minor criminal offences, specifically those triable by magistrates. The Court questioned the rationale behind keeping individuals in custody for extended periods, particularly when the offences are relatively minor and co-accused have already been granted bail.

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Manmohan, hearing an appeal in the case of Jatin Murjani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasized that such prolonged incarceration was unnecessary. The case involved allegations of creating fraudulent GST registrations using stolen PAN and Aadhaar details. While the Allahabad High Court had earlier rejected bail applications, the apex court pointed out that others in the same case had already been granted bail, prompting the Court to ask, “What is the purpose of keeping them in jail?”

The Bench remarked, “Time and again, we have said that there is no point in keeping a person in custody. He should have been given bail earlier only.” The Court further emphasized that it was illogical to deny bail in such cases, especially when the trial for such offences may not be heard for years. “Such Magistrate-triable cases won’t be heard for 10 years. What is the purpose of keeping them in jail? On first principles, can we deny them bail?” it questioned.

Addressing the broader issue of delayed trials, the Court noted that even in serious cases like murder, bail was often granted considering the situation at hand. The Court’s statement reflects growing concerns over the backlog of cases and the need for timely judicial interventions in minor offence cases.

During the hearing, counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh sought more time to demonstrate how the current accused’s case differed from that of the co-accused. As a result, the Bench scheduled further hearings for December 23, with the hope of addressing the concerns raised and clarifying the approach to bail in such cases.


Case: Jatin Murjani vs State of UP – Available on LAWFYI.IO

Subscription Box

Subscribe to LawPost

Subscribe to our free newsletter to get all the latest legal news instantly!

Related Articles

Supreme Court says flashy LinkedIn profile isn’t proof of income, denies wife ₹12 crore alimony and BMW

SC Rejects ₹12 Cr Alimony, Cites LinkedIn as Unreliable Income Proof; Grants...

Sudden Brakes on Highways Are Negligence, Supreme Court Awards ₹91 Lakh to Injured Youth

In a significant ruling reaffirming road safety responsibilities, the Supreme Court of...

End of Stray Dogs in Delhi? Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Rabies Deaths Linked to Dog Bites

Court alarmed by “extremely troubling” reports; matter placed before CJI for urgent...