Process Of Criminal Law Not For Arm-Twisting & Money Recovery When Prayer For Bail Is Opposed: SC
Process of Criminal Law Not for Arm-Twisting & Money Recovery When Prayer for Bail Is Opposed: Supreme Court
🔹 Principle Explained:
The criminal justice system is designed to ensure fair investigation, prosecution, and trial, and to uphold the rule of law.
It is not meant to be a tool for coercion, harassment, or extortion.
When an accused applies for bail, the investigation or prosecution must not use the process as leverage to extract money or favors, nor should bail be opposed merely to arm-twist the accused.
Opposition to bail should be on legitimate grounds relating to the nature of offence, risk of flight, tampering with evidence, or threat to witnesses — not as a tool for coercion or monetary gain.
🔹 Judicial Reasoning:
Misuse of Criminal Process
Courts have recognized that criminal cases have sometimes been misused to force accused persons into parting with money or property.
This misuse amounts to serious abuse of power and violates the principle of natural justice and fair trial.
Bail as a Rule, Jail as Exception
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
Bail applications must be considered on merits, and arbitrary or malicious opposition should not be allowed.
No Coercion or Extortion
The criminal process cannot be converted into a money recovery mechanism.
Police or prosecution cannot stall bail to extract money or force the accused into settlements.
Safeguards Against Harassment
Courts act as a safeguard against misuse by ensuring that bail is granted where appropriate.
Courts also issue strict directions against police excesses or harassment.
Investigative Vigilance Does Not Justify Oppressive Action
While investigation must be thorough, it cannot be a cloak to deny bail or intimidate the accused.
The court balances the need for investigation with liberty of the accused.
🔹 Landmark Case Law Principles:
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court emphasized the right to liberty and held that bail should not be denied arbitrarily.
In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012), the Court reiterated that criminal process must not be misused for extraneous purposes such as extortion.
In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliya (1977), the Court cautioned against misuse of the process for harassment or economic gain.
More recently, the Court in several judgments has reiterated that opposition to bail solely for arm-twisting or monetary gain is impermissible and constitutes abuse of the legal process.
🔹 Practical Implications:
| Scenario | Proper Approach | Improper Misuse |
|---|---|---|
| Bail opposition | Based on merits, nature of offence, risk of flight | Opposition to pressure accused into payment |
| Investigation | Fair, impartial, timely | Delay, intimidation, or threats to extract money |
| Judicial oversight | Ensures liberty and fairness | Ignores misuse, resulting in wrongful detention |
🔹 Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s position firmly establishes that the criminal law machinery is not a tool for arm-twisting or extorting money, especially when the accused seeks bail. Opposition to bail must be grounded in law and justice, not coercion. The courts safeguard this principle by ensuring that the process respects the rights of the accused and prevents harassment or misuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments