Published on Bihar Advocates Club | Legal Reforms | Criminal Justice | Bail System in India
Introduction
For years, India’s bail system has been criticized for being confusing, slow, and unfair — especially to the poor and marginalized.
The Supreme Court took a big step to fix this with the case titled In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail.
This case is different from others because it wasn’t about one person or one crime.
It was about fixing the system itself — about creating a national strategy so that bail becomes a right, not a privilege, and people don’t rot in jails just because they cannot afford expensive lawyers or long procedures.
Background of the Case
This case started because the Supreme Court itself realized that there were too many problems with how bail was being granted across the country:
Too many undertrial prisoners who could have been released
Long delays in hearing bail applications
Inconsistency — similar cases were treated differently in different courts
Poor people and marginalized communities suffering the most
The Court decided to take suo motu cognizance (taking action on its own) and began working towards creating a national framework for bail.
Key Issues Before the Court
The Court wanted to address a few important questions:
Why are bail laws not applied uniformly across India?
How can we make the bail process faster and more fair?
How to ensure poor people get bail just like the rich?
What reforms are needed to bring discipline and humanity to the criminal justice system?
What the Supreme Court Observed
The observations made by the Court were deeply thoughtful and empathetic. They said:
Liberty is the most precious fundamental right under the Constitution.
Bail should not be denied casually. It must be the norm, not the rare exception.
Arrests must be avoided unless absolutely necessary — especially in non-violent and minor offences.
There is a need for uniformity in how bail is granted across all courts, from the lowest magistrate to the highest appellate courts.
The Court acknowledged that economic status should never decide a person’s freedom.
Poor people are often jailed simply because they cannot afford good legal representation, and that needs to change.
What Directions Were Given?
Here’s what the Court suggested and ordered:
1. Creation of Bail Guidelines
The Court recommended a clear, nationwide policy that would guide judges on how and when to grant bail.
2. Judicial Training
Magistrates and judges should be trained to prioritize personal liberty.
They must understand that jail should not be the default choice.
3. Avoid Unnecessary Arrests
Police officers must not arrest mechanically.
They must apply their mind and arrest only when it’s really needed.
4. Fair Opportunity for Bail
Every person must be informed of their right to apply for bail immediately after arrest.
Bail hearings should be fast-tracked, especially for minor offences.
5. Use of Technology
The Court encouraged the use of online systems to track bail applications and prevent delays.
A Simple Example to Understand
Imagine two people are arrested for stealing ₹500 worth of goods.
One hires a good lawyer and gets bail within days.
The other — a poor worker — doesn’t know the process, can’t afford a lawyer, and spends 6 months in jail before the case even starts.
This case is trying to stop this injustice.
With a national bail policy, both individuals would be treated the same way — fairly and equally.
Why This Case Matters
| Problems Before | Solutions Proposed |
|---|---|
| No consistency in granting bail | Uniform national bail guidelines |
| Poor people jailed for small crimes | Equal access to bail for all |
| Delays in bail hearings | Fast-tracking bail applications |
| Arrests made without careful thought | Mandatory review before every arrest |
This case is important because it does not focus on fixing just one incident — it is about changing the entire mindset of the justice system.
Citation
In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail,
Supreme Court of India, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl) No. 4 of 2021
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and others
Conclusion
The In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail case reminds us that justice delayed is justice denied, and sometimes, bail denied is liberty denied.
It highlights the Supreme Court’s vision for an India where the rich and the poor stand equal before the law, and freedom is not just for those who can afford it.
The case is not just a judgment — it is a call for a cultural shift in how we think about crime, punishment, and basic human dignity.
In the journey to make justice accessible to all, this case is a major milestone.