Supreme Court Apologise to Public
Please refer two my appeals for justice through DARPG ;
In india democracy is a farce , freedom a mirage. the most basic freedom RIGHT TO INFORMATION & EXPRESSION , is not honoured by the government,as the information opens up the crimes of V.V.I.Ps & leads to their ill-gotten wealth. The public servants are least bothered about the lives of people or justice to them. these type of fat cats , parasites are a drain on the public exchequer . these people want ,wish me to see dead , wish to see HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH closed . so that, a voice against injustices is silenced forever , the crimes of V.V.I.Ps closed , buried forever.
To my numerous appeals , HRW’s appeals to you ,you have not yet replied. It clearly shows that you are least bothered about the lives of people or justice to them .it proves that you are hell bent to protect the criminals at any cost. you are just pressurising the police to enquire me ,to take my statement, to repeatedly call me to police station all with a view to silence me.all of you enjoy “legal immunity privileges” ,why don’t you have given powers to the police / investigating officer to summon all of you for enquiry ?or else why don’t all of you are not appearing before the police voluntarily for enquiry ?at the least why don’t all of you are not sending your statement about the case to the police either through legal counsel or through post? you are aiding criminals ,by denying me job oppurtunities in R.B.I CURRENCY NOTE PRESS mysore , city civil court ,bangalore , distict court , mysore ,etc & by illegally closing my newspaper.
there is a gross, total mismatch between your actions and your oath of office. this amounts to public cheating & moral turpitude on your part.
1.you are making contempt of the very august office you hold.
2.you are making contempt of the constitution of india.
3.you are making contempt of citizens of india.
4.you are sponsoring & aiding terrorism & organized crime.
5.you are violating the fundamental & human rights of the citizens of india and of neighbouring countries.
6.you are violating & making contempt of the U.N HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER to which india is a signatory.
7.you are obstructing me from performing my fundamental duties as a citizen of india.
8. As a result of your gross negligence of constitutional duties you have caused me damages / losses to the tune of RUPEES TWO CRORE ONLY.
you are hereby called upon to Pay damages to me and SHOW-CAUSE within 30 days , why you cann’t be legally prosecuted for the above mentioned crimes .
If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants , Chief Justice of India & Jurisdictional District Magistrate will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.
if anything untoward happens to me or my dependents , the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty judges , police officials , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries. Thanking you. Jai Hind , Vande Mataram.
Date : 23.04.2016……………………………………………...your’s sincerely,
Place : Mysore , India………………………………………….Nagaraja M R
places for working journalists similar to the troubled nations
including Mexico, Yemen, Afghanistan and Iraq. The largest democracy
of the globe witnessed the murder of three journalists in the first
half of 2016, where the populous country lost five journalists to
assailants last year. As nobody has been convicted in all eight
journo-murder cases, the Indian media fraternity rose to the occasion
for special protection laws and also for a national action plan to
safeguard the media persons.
Pradesh, where a young scribe named Tarun Mishra was shot dead on 13
February 2016 at Gosaiganj locality in Sultanpur district. Mishra (32)
used to work for a Hindi daily named Jan Sandesh Times and he was
targeted for highlighting the illegal soil mining activities in his
district. Three motorcycle riding miscreants shot at him near to his
residential locality in Ambedkar Nagar and he succumbed to his severe
injuries in the hospital.
news channel reporter was killed by the local goons. Two unidentified
people targeted Indradev Yadav (also known as Akhilesh Pratap Singh)
at Dewaria locality of Chatra district on the night of 12 May. Yadav
(35), who used to work for Taaza News, faced the bullets in front of
the village Panchayat office and died on his way to the hospital.
Within 24 hours, the third case of journalist murder came to light
from its neighboring State of Bihar. Unidentified gunmen shot at
Rajdeo Ranjan on 13 May night at Siwan railway station locality.
Engaged with the national Hindi newspaper Hindustan in a senior
position, Ranjan (45) died in the hospital. A senior journalist with
brave image, Ranjan earned enmity with local political goons for his
reporting against those elements.
as in Patna and then it spread to other parts of the country. Various
local, national and international media (rights) bodies including the
members of prestigious press clubs based in New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata
etc demonstrated their angers against the vicious attacks on scribes
and demanded distinctive punishment to each & every single perpetrator
of the crimes.
that ‘journalism today is amongst the most dangerous professions in
the world’, but even though people get attracted to it, as the society
needs truth and journalism is the most powerful medium to bring out
necessary…The first target of this struggle will be to bring the
killers of Rajdeo Ranjan to book. Here I would like to thank friends
in the media for their united stand on the issue….Believe me, we are
nothing without your patronage. And we once again reaffirm our resolve
to continue to be your voice,” added the column.
with a statement condemning the killings and twitted, “I strongly
condemn murder of journalists Rajdeo Ranjan in Siwan and Akhilesh
Pratap Singh in Chatra district. Independent investigation may be
instituted and guilty be punished.”
country lost five journalists namely Jagendra Singh (UP), Sandeep
Kothari (Madhya Pradesh), Raghavendra Dube (Maharashtra), Hemant Yadav
(UP) and Mithilesh Pandey (Bihar) to assailants last year. Shockingly,
no one has been convicted in all cases.
Paris based Reporters Sans/Without Borders (RSF) strongly condemned
the killings and called for an authentic investigation into the
incidents. They also expressed concerns that India is slipping down in
the media freedom parameters turning the largest democracy into a
worst place for working journalists.
Institute (IPI) commented that it shows the failure of the province
governments to provide basic protection to journalists to carry out
their works. The forum also called the Indian authorities to conduct a
full, swift and transparent investigation into their deaths to ensure
justice to the victim families with an aim to end a growing culture of
impunity for crimes against journalists.
of the 2016 World Press Freedom Index. Though the Indian media is
dynamic and much more capable of playing the role of democracy’s
watchdog, the number of journalists killed and the impunity for crimes
of violence against the media fraternity escalate.
index measures the level of freedom available to journalists in 180
countries using the following criteria – pluralism, media
independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative
environment, transparency, infrastructure, and abuses.
“Wherever they work, Indian journalists are exposed to growing
violence. As well as frequent verbal and physical violence, attacks by
armed groups are on the rise in several states and the local
authorities have had little success in reining it in,” said a recent
Union government in New Delhi to launch a national action plan for the
safety of journalists and for the prevention of dangers and threats to
them, however RSF’s requests had so far gone unheeded.
Lately the Press Council of India chairman justice (retired)
Chandramouli Kumar Prasad came forward to strongly condemn the killing
of scribes and urged the Centre to enact a special law for protection
of journalists and speedy trial of cases of attacks & assaults on the
been taken to logical conclusion and are either languishing in the
courts or in some cases, investigation reached dead-end in the last
two decades, as reported by a Committee of the PCI,” said the press
(from 1 January 2016 till date), where India emerges as one of the
deadliest countries. According to the CPJ, India finds itself with
troubled countries like Mexico, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq etc losing
over three journalists each in the last four months. After Syria (2)
and Turkey (2), Philippines, Guinea, El Salvador and Pakistan
(Muhammad Umar of Daily Dera News) recorded the murder of one
journalist each till date this year.
against the killing of journos in central Indian provinces. The
representatives of various journalist organizations assembled in front
of Guwahati Press Club on 16 May and demonstrated their angers.
Covering their mouths with black clothes, the demonstrators also
demanded stringent actions against the culprits.
protection laws for the benefit of working journalists across the
country and called upon the Narendra Modi led Union government in New
Delhi to formulate a national action plan to safeguard the media
persons, who pursue critical journalism for the interest of society,
nation and the human race.
suspecting their involvement in the killing of Yadav. According to the
police the arrest was made on the basis of CCTV records, mobile call
details and other relevant evidences. Lately, the Bihar police also
arrested five persons suspecting their role in the murder of Ranjan.
Few others were detained by both the Jharkhand and Bihar police for
Chaudhary and wife Asha Devi demanded a Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) probe to unearth the killers and they publicly
declared that they had little faith in the local police. Many Bihar
based journalists also asked for a CBI probe into Ranjan’s murder,
which compelled the State chief minister Nitish Kumar to recommend for
a CBI investigation to look into the matter.
Honest Hard Working Child Laborers Earning Less Than Rupees 32 per day
Salary of Chief Justice of India Rupees 100000 per month & salary of supreme court judge Rupees 90000 per month plus 5 star heritage bungalow , 5 star air / train travel , 5 star health care facility , etc all at tax payers expense
Salary of Member of Parliament Rupees 130000 per month + grand allowances 5 star heritage bungalow , 5 star air / train travel , 5 star health care facility , etc all at tax payers expense
When a Judge Himself Commits Crime , When a POLICE Himself robs , Murders ….
The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free under his patronage. even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved.
just think , if a judge himself, that too of apex court of the land himself commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?
it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals in public service to commit more crimes.
Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India is the last savior for public who are suffering injustices at the hands of powers that be , whose fundamental rights & human rights are violated. But inspite of repeated appeal for justice CJI & SUPREME COURT OF INDIA turned their blind eye , became deaf , mute spectator. CJI , SCI let down the suffering masses.
CJI & SCI are hand in league with criminals and are operating cunningly without leaving a trace of evidence. So they cann’t be legally prosecuted. Due to intentional negligence , failure of duties , TACIT SUPPORT by CJI & SCI judges many criminals have escaped , sample of which :
1. Master minds of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case.
2. God fathers of Forest brigand Veerappan.
3. Huge robbery took place within RBI.
4. Many Police who are themselves Criminals in Khaki , are not prosecuted for the murders , torture they committed , for the bribes they received. BUT ARE POLICING , PROSECUTING OTHERS.
5. Many Judges who are themselves CRIMINALS are not legally prosecuted for the crimes they committed. BUT ARE JUDGING OTHERS.
6. Big Industrialists of Reliance Industries , RPG Enterprises , others have committed huge crimes involving crores of rupees and still continuing crimes.
7. Top executives of MNC Union Carbide & DOW Chemicals escaped from law after committing man slaughter.
8. Land grabbing worth Billions of rupees took place with TACIT SUPPORT of Judges , Police.
9. Loot of natural resources worth Billions of rupees took place with TACIT SUPPORT of Judges , Police.
10. The crusader , human rights activist , web journalist who raised his voice seeking justice was assaulted , facing life threat , his livelihood destroyed , his news paper closed down , accreditation to journalist & his web news paper denied , he is followed , monitored by criminals that be. The persecutors are not yet prosecuted.
11. What action has been taken by police , state governments concerned and apex court with respect to the murders of whistle blowers , RTI Activists and journalist ? casewise.
12. If not why ?
13. Protection of common people , public is a state subject & police must do their duty to protect citizens. Nowadays Police few police themselves are becoming a threat by working in league with the criminals. What action taken by apex court against duty failing police in the cases mentioned below. Casewise. ?
14. When every organ of the government fails to safeguard constitutional , fundamental rights of a citizen , It becomes the sworn duty of SUPREME COURT OF INDIA to step in and protect the citizens & their fundamental rights , human rights. However when the supreme court judges themselves fail in their duties , what action is taken against such duty failing judges , casewise ? The duty failure of the SCI judges indirectly aids criminals to do more crimes and act of failure , negligence by judges thereby amounts to COLLUSION with CRIMINALS.
15. What action has been taken by supreme court of india based on the Public Interest Litigations filed by our publication ?
PILs can be referred at : https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/no-jail-for-guilty-judges-police
16. If not taken any action by SCI judges , why ?
17 . When a commonman goes to police station either as a complainant or witness or defendant / accused police question him , enquire his antecedents to know whether the person in question is leading a honest life. In the same way before court during case proceedings , lawyers , judge question the person in same way to ascertain his antecedents. In turn why cann’t the same person is not allowed to question the police , investigating officials , lawyers & judge to ascertain their antecedents , to make sure no match fixing is done ?
Name : ...........................NAGARAJA.M.R.
Address : ...................LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP
WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL , MYSORE - 570017 INDIA
Professional / Trade Title : S.O.S - e – Clarion Of Dalit
Periodicity : WEEKLY
Circulation : FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION ON WEB
Donations : NOT ACCEPTED. Self financing . Never accepted any donations , subscriptions either for ourselves or on behalf of other organizations / individuals .
Monetary Gains : nil , never made any monetary gain by way of advertisements on my websites or web news paper or otherwise.
Owner/Editor/Printer/Publisher : NAGARAJA.M.R.
Nationality : INDIAN
Body Donation : Physical Body of Nagaraja M R , Editor , S.O.S- e – clarion of Dalit & S.O.S-e-Voice for Justice is donated to JSS Medical College , Mysore ( Donation No. 167 dated 22 / 10 / 2003 ) , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my body must be handed over to JSS Medical College , Mysore for the study purposes of medical students.
Eye Donation : Both EYES of Nagaraja M R , Editor , S.O.S- e – clarion of Dalit & S.O.S-e-Voice for Justice are donated to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my eyes must be handed over to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore WITHIN 6 Hours for immediate eye transplantation to the needy.
Home page :
Contact : email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org ,
UID Aadhaar No : 5703 5339 3479
Cell : 91 8970318202
I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits , rich crooks , criminals even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.
If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for ourselves , If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members - In such case Chief Justice of India together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , Judges , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries.
date :04.07.2016 …………………………..Your's sincerely,
place : India…………………………………...Nagaraja.M.R.
Umakant worked in a post-office in Harjinder Nagar area of Kanpur. Department authorities at the post office handed Mishra Rs 697.60 in cash to distribute as money-order. Of the total Rs 697.60, Umakant distributed Rs 300 and the rest he claimed to have returned to his senior colleagues. But they accused him of stealing Rs 57.60 and lodged an FIR against him.
That was on July 13, 1984. A case was registered against him for stealing Rs 57, and he was promptly suspended. The police booked him for criminal breach of trust.
It took nearly 350 hearings and 29 years for Umakant to prove himself innocent, but the loss he suffered in this period was enormous. The judgment was delivered by a metropolitan magistrate on November 25.
Umakant wept when he was approached for an interview. Struggling to find words, Umakant said, "I retired three years ago and remained suspended for nearly 26 years. I have no idea what to say or do."
His wife Geeta said, "I am relieved and happy with the verdict, but if we'd got justice at the right time, our children's career wouldn't have got ruined. We lived with the stigma and financial trouble for so long that our future is destroyed."
"This is apathy at its worst. We lost everything, borrowed money for our livelihood, children's education and marriage," she said. "Without regular income, we had trouble arranging for the education and marriage of our children. We sought donation to marry off our two daughters. Since we could not educate our children, our son Ganga has an insecure job.
Shetye is now sitting on hunger strike seeking to meet Devendra Fadnavis and demanding that seven years of his life be returned.
Chief Justice of India Tirath Singh Thakur said if bar association cooperates, judges will be ready to work even on Saturdays to clear pending cases.
In a tough stance against Maoists, police incarcerate people for years, only to release them for lack of evidence
A long record of appalling conditions
Rising number of custodial deaths and abuse
It’d be nice to think our judicial system is totally infallible, but unfortunately, that’s just not the case. Innocent people are convicted of crimes they didn’t commit more often than anyone would like to admit, and in some cases, people who were later found to be innocent have actually been put to death.
Presumed Guilty: After 14 wasted years in prison, life begins anew
Aamir was driven to a destination and deposited in a room, where he was routinely beaten, tortured, fed at the rarest possible intervals, and made to sign blank papers and disclosure agreements.
"Without Justice, life would not be possible and even if it were it would not be worth living" ......Giorgio Del Vecchio (Justice)
Notion as theory of law can be defined as a study based on presupposes or ideal which a men seek for its realization through law, called as Theory of Justice. The word justice has been derived from the actual concept of justness which acts as the primordial factor for any state to provide for its populace. The concept of justice was vitiated with various welfare, moral and psychological factors. Harmonious surveillance of these three features acts as a social tool, which makes justice accessible to all.
Justice is a generic term, which includes both procedural (Natural) and substantive (Social) justice. In India, justice has been adorned as the very embodiment of God, whose sole mission is to uphold justice, truth and righteousness. Under our Indian constitution Justice sets the ultimate goal for all of us to serve our nation. It is a mixture of natural and social justice as evident from Preamble and Part IV of our constitution. The concept of Justice being so important is used only twice in our Indian Constitution, i.e. in Preamble and in Art 39 A.
In Preamble it sets out as- to secure to all its citizens- Justice- Social, economic and political and Article 39 A states that the state to secure equal justice and free legal aid for the citizens.
By Uzma Falakhttps://indiapoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/a-chronicle-of-a-kashmiri-man-acquitted-after-more-than-18-years-of-incarceration/
The concept of bail, which is an integral part of the criminal jurisprudence, also suffers from the above stated drawbacks. Bail is broadly used to refer to the release of a person charged with an offence, on his providing a security that will ensure his presence before the court or any other authority whenever required.
Courts have greater discretion to grant or deny bail in the case of persons under criminal arrest, e.g., it is usually refused when the accused is charged with homicide.
What is contemplated by bail is to "procure the release of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he/she shall appear at the time and place designated and submit him/herself to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court." 
A reading of the above definition make it evident that money need not be a concomitant of the bail system. As already discussed above, the majority of the population in rural India, lives in the thrall of poverty and destitution, and don't even have the money to earn one square meal a day. Yet, they are still expected to serve a surety even though they have been charged with a bailable offence where the accused is entitled to secure bail as a matter of right. As a result, a poor man languishes behind bars, subject to the atrocities of the jail authorities rubbing shoulders with hardened criminals and effectively being treated as a convict.
History of Bail
The concept of bail can traced back to 399 BC, when Plato tried to create a bond for the release of Socrates. The modern bail system evolved from a series of laws originating in the middle ages in England.
Evolution in England
There existed a concept of circuit courts during the medieval times in Britain. Judges used to periodically go ?on circuit? to various parts of the country to decide cases. The terms Sessions and Quarter Sessions are thus derived from the intervals at which such courts were held. In the meanwhile, the under trials were kept in prison awaiting their trials. These prisoners were kept in very unhygienic and inhumane conditions this was caused the spread of a lot of diseases. This agitated the undertrials, who were hence separated from the accused. This led to their release on their securing a surety, so that it was ensured that the person would appear on the appointed date for hearing. If he did not appear then his surety was held liable and was made to face trial. Slowly the concept of monetary bail came into existence and the said undertrials was asked to give a monetary bond, which was liable to get forfeited on non-appearance.
In The Magna Carta, in 1215, the first step was taken in granting rights to citizens. It said that no man could be taken or imprisoned without being judged by his peers or the law of the land.
Then in 1275, the Statute of Westminster was enacted which divided crimes as bailable and non bailable. It also determined which judges and officials could make decisions on bail.
In 1677, the Habeas Corpus Act was added to the Right Of Petition of 1628, which gave the right to the defendant the right to be told of the charges against him, the right to know if the charges against him were bailable or not. The Habeas Corpus Act, 1679 states, "A Magistrate shall discharge prisoners from their Imprisonment taking their Recognizance, with one or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum according to the Magistrate's discretion, unless it shall appear that the Party is committed for such Matter offenses for which by law the Prisoner is not bailable."
In 1689 came The English Bill Of Rights, which provided safeguards against judges setting bail too high. It stated that "excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects. Excessive bail ought not to be required."
In 1976 the Bail Act 1976 came into force. It sets out the current and the basic legal position of bail prevailing in England. It lays out that there is a general right to bail, except as provided for under the First Schedule of the Act. While there are different grounds for refusing the right to bail depending on the type of offence, for all imprison able offences the two basic grounds are as set out by the O'Callaghan decision. But there is also the additional ground that if the court is satisfied that there are "substantial grounds for believing" that the defendant if released on bail will commit an offence while on bail, bail may be refuse.
Under section 5(3) of the Bail Act 1976 the court which withholds bail is required to give reasons, so that the defendant can consider making an application. In practice, however, the reasons given by English courts on a variety of standard forms are frequently short and not explicitly based upon particular facts and factors. Stone's Justices' Manual suggests that magistrates announce any decision to refuse bail merely by relating the grounds and statutory reasons in short form.
English administrative law also requires that, where there is an existing obligation to give reasons for a decision, the reasons given be clear and adequate, and deal with the substantial issues in the case.
The English courts use tick boxes for recording the grounds and the reasons for not granting bail. There is a use of a standard pattern that which lists out the various reasons for not granting the bail. These forms vary in their precise configuration, but in substance they are all the same as all of them set out the grounds for refusing bail in one column, and a number of possible reasons for the findings those grounds established in another column. The decision is recorded by ticking the relevant box in each column. But the decisions recorded on standard forms might be at risk of being characterised as "abstract" or "stereotyped", and therefore inadequate. The quality of the reasons given directly reflects the quality of the decision-making process.
Evolution in America
According to the San Francisco News and the SF Chronicle, the first modern Bail Bonds business in the United States, the system by which a person pays a percentage to a professional bondsman who puts up the cash as a guarantee that the person will appear in court, was established by Tom and Peter P. McDonough in San Francisco in 1898. Infact, this was the same year that the Bill of Rights was introduced in England, and the Congress passed the Judiciary Act. This specified which types of crimes were bailable and set bounds on a judge's discretion in setting bail. The Act states that all non-capital crimes are bailable and that in capital cases the decision to detain a suspect, prior to trial, was to be left to the judge. In 1791 The Bill Of Rights was incorporated into Constitution of the United States, through the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, guaranteeing citizens the right to due process of law, a fair and speedy trial and protection against excessive bail. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that "excessive bail shall not be required," but it does not provide any absolute right to bail.
Under current law, a defendant has the right to bail unless there is sufficient reason not to grant it. The main reasons for refusing bail according to the Bail Act 1976 are that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant (1) will abscond; (2) will commit further offences whilst on bail; or (3) will interfere with witnesses. Conditions may be applied to the grant of bail, such as living at a particular address or, rarely, paying an amount into court or having someone act as surety. Release on bail is sometimes referred to as police bail, where the release was by the police rather than by a court.
The alternative to being granted bail is being remanded into custody (also called being held on remand).
In America, every accused person is entitled to a hearing at which evidence relevant to his individual case is considered to determine the amount of bail necessary. No precise rule can be laid down that will determine the amount of bail required in any particular instance. Bail is to be fixed according to the circumstances of each case. The matter is generally one for the sound discretion of the trial court. Although the determination of the trial court is subject to the review in the appellate courts for abuse of discretion, ordinarily the appellate courts will not interfere if the amount set by the trial court is reasonable and not excessive.
The amount of a bond should, of course, be sufficient to assure the attendance of the defendant upon the court when it is required. The bond should be fixed in such amount that will exact vigilance on the part of the sureties to see that the defendant appears in court when called.
Both the Federal Constitution and state constitutions contain provisions against excessive bail. Bail set at an amount higher than reasonably calculated to insure that the accused will appear to stand trial and submit to sentence if convicted is excessive, and falls within the proscription of the Federal Constitution if set by a federal court, or of the particular state's constitution if set by a state court. But no hard-and-fast rules for determining what is reasonable bail and what is excessive bail have been laid down. That the bail is reasonable which, in view of the nature of the offense, the penalty attached to the offense, and the probability of guilt of defendant, seems no more than sufficient to secure attendance of the defendant.
The amount of bail, in and of itself, is not finally determinative of excessiveness. What would be reasonable bail in the case of one defendant may be excessive in the case of another. As indicated below, such matters as the past criminal record of the defendant, and the nature of the crime committed and the punishment therefore, are material factors in determining whether bail is excessive.
Where two or more cased are pending against a defendant, the fact that bail in one case, considered by itself, is reasonable, does not prevent the collective amount required in the several cases from being excessive.
The gist of the problem confronting a court in setting the amount of bail is to place the amount high enough to reasonably assure the presence of defendant when it is required, and at the same time to avoid a figure higher than that reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose, and therefore excessive. The general rule in federal courts is to try to strike a balance between the need for a tie to the jurisdiction and the right to freedom from unnecessary restraint before conviction, under the circumstances surrounding each particular accused. In other words, in determining the amount of bail, the good of the public as well as the rights of the accused should be kept in mind.
The Bail Reform Act of 1966 provides for the release of defendant on his personal recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the judicial officer before whom he appears, unless the officer determines, in the exercise of his discretion, that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of defendant as required, in which event specified conditions of release which will reasonably assure defendant's appearance for trial may be imposed. The Bail Reforms Act, 1966 was initiated by President Johnson who felt that under the Federal Rules, bail in an amount higher than reasonably calculated to be necessary to assure the presence of the accused is excessive.
It has been stated that the factors to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of bail are:
(1) ability of the accused to give bail,
(2) nature of offense,
(3) penalty for the offense charged,
(4) character and reputation of the accused,
(5) health of the accused,
(6) character and strength of the evidence,
(7) probability of the accused appearing at trial,
(8) forfeiture of other bonds, and
(9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested. 
That the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases should also be considered.
A major factor in determining the amount of bail in a current matter is the character and former criminal record of the defendant. It has been held, however, that the criminal activities and tendencies of a person applying for bail on a charge of vagrancy do not justify the fixing of bail at an excessive amount for the purpose of keeping him in jail.
In determining the amount of bail, voluntary surrender may be considered as an indication that the defendant has no intention of absconding from justice. On the other hand, it is also proper, in setting a higher bail figure, to take into consideration the fact that at the time of arrest the accused was a fugitive from justice, or the fact that the defendant has previously absconded while under indictment.
Even where bail is a matter of right, the fact that a person has previously forfeited bail is a factor to be considered in determining the amount of bail; in such a case bail may be set in such amount as will reasonably assure the presence of the defendant at court, although bail may not be refused altogether. In setting the bail, the court may also consider the behavior or misbehavior of the defendant during parole from prison on a previous criminal conviction.
The probability of the establishment of guilt at the trial, or the existence of doubt as to the guilt of the accused, is a proper consideration in determining the amount of bail. Hence a court, in determining the amount of bail, may consider the character and strength of the evidence by which the crime charged is supported.
A court should give some regard to the prisoner's pecuniary circumstances, since what is reasonable bail to a man of wealth may be equivalent to a denial of the right to bail if exacted of a poor man charged with a like offense. An accused cannot be denied release from detention because of indigence, but is constitutionally entitled to be released on his personal recognizance where other relevant factors make it reasonable to believe that he will comply with the orders of the court.
However, bail is not rendered excessive by the mere inability of the accused to procure bail in the amount required. In other words, the extent of the pecuniary ability of the accused to furnish bail in not controlling, if it were, the fixing of any amount, no matter how small, where the accused had no means of his own and no friends who were able or willing to become sureties for him, would constitute a case of excessive bail, and would entitle him to got at large on his own recognizance. It is the incarceration of those individuals who cannot meet established money bail requirements, without meaningful consideration of other possible alternatives, which infringes on both due process and equal protection requirements.
The current American position is stated as follows in a standard treatise "There is power in the court to release the defendant without bail or on his own recognition."
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereinafter), does not define bail, although the terms bailable offence and non-bailable offence have been defined in section 2(a) Cr.P.C. as follows: " Bailable offence means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being enforce, and non-bailable offence means any other offence". Further, ss. 436 to 450 set out the provisions for the grant of bail and bonds in criminal cases. The amount of security that is to be paid by the accused to secure his release has not been mentioned in the Cr.P.C.. Thus, it is the discretion of the court to put a monetary cap on the bond. Unfortunately, it has been seen that courts have not been sensitive to the economic plight of the weaker sections of society. The unreasonable and exorbitant amounts demanded by the courts as bail bonds clearly show their callous attitude towards the poor.
According to the 78th report of the Law Commission as on April 1, 1977, of a total prison population of 1,84,169, as many as 1,01,083 (roughly 55%) were under-trials. For specific jails, some other reports show: Secunderabad Central Jail- 80 per cent under-trials; Surat-78 per cent under-trials; Assam, Tripura and Meghalaya-66 per cent under-trials.
One of the reasons for this is, as already mentioned above, is the large scale poverty amongst the majority of the population in our country. Fragmentation of land holdings is a common phenomenon in rural India. A family consisting of around 8 ? 10 members depends on a small piece of land for their subsistence, which also is a reason for disguised unemployment. When one of the members of such a family gets charged with an offence, the only way they can secure his release and paying the bail is by either selling off the land or giving it on mortgage. This would further push them more into the jaws of poverty. This is the precise reason why most of the under trials languish in jail instead of being out on bail.
An overview of the following cases highlight the adverse condition of the poor with regard to the unjust bail system in India. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, the accused was convicted by the trial court. When he went on appeal the High Court, it acquitted him. The State went on appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution through a special leave petition. The accused was directed to surrender by the court. He then filed for bail. It was then for the first time that Justice Krishna Iyer raised his voice against this unfair system of bail administration. He said that though while the system of pecuniary bail has a tradition behind it, a time for rethinking has come. It may well be that in most cases an undertaking would serve the purpose.
In Moti Ram and Ors. v State of M.P , the accused who was a poor mason was convicted. The apex court had passed a sketchy order, referring it to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to enlarge him on bail, without making any specifications as to sureties, bonds etc. The CJM assumed full authority on the matter and fixed Rs. 10,000 as surety and bond and further refused to allow his brother to become a surety as his property was in the adjoining village. MR went on appeal once more to the apex court and Justice Krishna Iyer condemned the act of the CJM, and said that the judges should be more inclined towards bail and not jail.
In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India , Justice Krishna Iyer once again spoke against the unfair system of bail that was prevailing in India. No definition of bail has been given in the code, although the offences are classified as bailable and non-bailable. Further Justice P.N.Bhagwati also spoke about how unfair and discriminatory the bail system is when looked at from the economic criteria of a person this discrimination arises even if the amount of bail fixed by the magistrates isn't high for some, but a large majority of those who are brought before the courts in criminal cases are so poor that they would
find it difficult to furnish bail even if it's a small amount.
Further in Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Sec,State of Bihar  , the Court laid down the ratio that when the man is in jail for a period longer than the sentence he is liable for then he should be released.
A perusal of the above cases highlights the strong anti-poor bias of the Indian criminal justice system. Even though the courts in some cases have tried to intervene and also have laid down certain guidelines to be followed but unfortunately nothing has been done about it. There is also a strong need felt for a complete review of the bail system keeping in mind the socio-economic condition of the majority of our population. While granting bail the court must also look at the socio-economic plight of the accused and must also have a compassionate attitude towards them. A proper scrutiny may be done to determine whether the accused has his roots in the community which would deter him from fleeing from the court. The court can take into account the following facts concerning the accused before granting him bail:
(1) The nature of the offence committed by the accused.
(2) The length of his residence in the community.
(3) His employment status history and his financial condition.
(4) His family ties and relationships.
(5) His reputation character and monetary conditions.
(6) His prior criminal records, including any record or prior release on recognizance or on bail.
(7) Identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for his reliability.
(8) The nature of the offence charged and the apparent probability of conviction and the likely sentence in so far as these factors are relevant to the risk of non-appearance.
(9) Any other factors indicating the ties of the accused to the community or barring on the risk of willful failure to appear.
The Way Forward
It is thought that from the various schemes the government operates for rural employment, loans to farmers etc, a portion of the funds which it transfers to the panchayat for developmental work of the same should be set aside and kept to meet the bail amount for undertrials belonging to the particular panchayat / block. The utilization of this fund would be in the hands of the elected leaders of the society with the representative of district collector / district magistrate being a part of the system. This would, go a long way in securing freedom for scores of undertrials who would then be able to contribute to society thereby
playing an important role and forming part of the national mainstream. Such a scenario will have the effect of reducing the burden of over-crowding in jail.
The setting up of separate jails, or at any rate isolating undertrials from convicts, would prevent hardened criminals from exercising their deleterious influence over undertrials. Such segregation would also change the attitude of jail authorities and society at large towards under trials.
The under trials who have been charged with petty crimes can further be put in reformative homes instead and asked to do community service till the time they are released on bail. Elementary education facilities must be granted to those under trials who are uneducated and illiterate. Thus, I feel that the benefit of bail should not only be in the hands of a few, but, should be available to the masses including those who do not have the financial capacity to afford it.