1.

INTRODUCTION:

In legal terms, bail refers to obtaining a person's release from custody while they are
awaiting trial or an appeal by posting a bond that guarantees their timely submission to
the appropriate authorities. The amount paid as the bail's monetary worth, or more
precisely, The court in charge of the prisoner determines the bail bond. The safety may
be money, title documents for property, a bond from wealthy individuals, or of a
qualified bondsman or bonding firm. Unsuccess of the person published on when a bail
bondholder fails to appear for court at the scheduled time, the security is lost.1 Bail is a
post-arrest remedy intended to ensure the release of the apprehended defendant until his
or her trial. Bail upholds the customary right to freedom prior to the establishment of
guilt. Bond is permitted to avoid imprisoning innocent people who might otherwise
result in a pre-trial penalty and to allow a defendant to prepare his defense before
allegations against him, however he is presumed innocent according to the general legal
norm.1

It is difficult to pinpoint the precise date and time when bail was first introduced or
adopted, but if we look through different eras of our global culture, we could find the
references of bail being practiced in different parts of the world since their inception. The
system of bail has been used by different countries of the world since the ancient times
in accordance with their local legal systems. The traces of bail have been seen since the
time of early civilization have a bail system in place as part of their criminal justice
system.

The right to bail is subject to statutory stipulation and is an essential part of the criminal
justice process. Offenses that are subject to bail and those that are not are clearly separated.
Although bail may be given for both types of offences, it is at the discretion of the court to
issue bail in non-bailable cases while automatically granting bail in bailable ones. Bailable and

1
[Link]
non-bailable cases are not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973; rather, they are
stated in reference to the offences by stating that the offence will be either be bailable or non-
bailable as stated in the first schedule or as stated in any other statute. If the offence is not
determined to be bailable under any other laws the second categorization in the first schedule
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would be applicable if the offence is sentenced by less
than 3 years or more, or non-bailable as per specified statute, and correspondingly.2

Bail matters basically involve striking a balance between the public interest and the accused's
private freedom. Individual interest lies in the personal liberty via providing bail.

Generally speaking, bail refers to the period before conviction when a suspect's personal
freedom is at stake. The idea of bail primarily involves two opposing interests. The first is the
interest of the person who was arrested, which involves the personal liberty to release him
from detention on some security, which may be Monterey or another type of surety.

The Criminal Procedure Code divides offences into two categories, bailable and non-
bailable, based on the seriousness of the offence and the penalty. The main clause governing
bail in circumstances where it is appropriate is found in Section 436 of the Criminal
Procedure Code of 19733, whereas the clause governing cases where it is not appropriate is
found in Section 437. It is possible to justify the division of offences into the categories of
bailable and non-bailable offences by arguing that bailable offences are typically viewed as
less terrible and serious than non-bailable offences. On this foundation, it could be difficult to
explain why, for example, offences under Sections 477, 477A, 475, and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code4 should be regarded as bailable whereas offences under Section 379 should not
be. The fact that a person accused of a crime that is subject to bail has a right to be released on
bond is unquestionable, as stated in Section 486 of the CriminalProcedure Code.

As Liberty holds a prominent position in our sociopolitical system. The men who created our
Constitution were the best people to understand the value of liberty. According to Article 21

2
Asim Pandey, Law of Bail Practice and Procedure, Second Edition, 2015, Lexis Nexis. p. 8
3
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4
Indian Penal Code
 of the Constitution, no one may be deprived of their personal freedom other than in accordance
with a legal process. Therefore, it follows that a person's personal freedom can be limited by
a legal process. One such procedural law is the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The law
allows for the restriction of anti-social and anti-national elements' freedom. In the case that a
person is arrested on suspicion of committing a crime against society or the nation, Article 22
imposes certain duties on the authorities5. The court is typically summoned in cases of under-
trials charged with committing an offence or offences to determine whether to release the
defendant on bond or to condemn him to jail.

Bail is a crucial component of the criminal justice system because it allows a person who is
awaiting trial to be released from prison. When assessing whether to grant a bail request, the
relevance of the individual liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution is called into
issue because bail is about releasing the person. The judiciary must use its authority to grant
bail when it is rejected, depriving the accused of their personal freedom. Due to the
importance and scope of Article 21, the taking of someone's freedom is a serious concern
and is only legal under certain circumstances.

2. CONCEPT OF BAIL:

Although bail is a legal phrase, it is used by laypeople as well as lawyers, although this is
not explicitly stated in the law. The literal meaning of bail includes security, bond,
payment, and financial guarantee. Conceptually, it is still seen as the claim, presumption,
and criticism of governmental limits on people's freedoms. The major reason for the arrest
and subsequent attendance of the accused is so that they can face punishment if found
guilty. It is highly likely that the accused will be released on bond and granted his right
to liberty during the trial if he guarantees that he will be present at every trial for his case.
An accused individual may be granted bail as one way to keep him or her out of jail and

5
Nirmal Kumar Banerjee v. State, 1972 Cri LJ 1582 at p. 1583 (Cal).
enjoy his or her freedom. Bail literally means a prisoner's appearance before being
released. The word bail was used for this concept from the old French verb bailer, which
meant to provide or deliver. The Latin verb "bajulare," which meaning "to bear a burden,"
is another theory, though. The sureties' bonds, as previously said. Bail is a means of
securing the conditional release of an accused person from custody while also
guaranteeing their presence at the trial.6

[Link] OF BAIL:

A] TEMPORARY BAIL

The accused may be granted temporary bail or parole by any court that has the authority to
prosecute a bail case. The accused gets released from their cell or prison on a temporary
basis for a set amount of time. Depending on the circumstances, the accused will need to
report back to jail or acell. Another type of temporary bail is parole. How frequently have
you recently been found guilty? Bollywood superstar Sanjay Dutt was charged and has been
given a provisional bail. A criminally guilty individual may be awarded parole, provisional
bail, or parole.7

B] INTERIM BAIL

Another provision allows the accused to take advantage of it and apply for bail if they
have a good reason. This is typically the case for crimes that require travel, but it is
also applicable to women, children, people over the age of 70, and students taking
exams. In these situations, interim relief or bail may be granted. It should be
remembered that just because interim bail has been granted does not necessarily
guarantee that regular bail will follow; regular bail can only be granted on the basis of

6
Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 177.
7
Janak Raj Jai, Bail Law and Procedures, 6th edition, 2015, Universal Law Publishing. AIR1979SC777
merit. The only circumstance in which interim bail cannot be granted is when the
offender is facing the death penalty, however this restriction has been relaxed for
women, minors, and senior citizens. The ordering authority cannot set any conditions
while granting bail in cases where an order of temporary bail has been granted in the
accused's favor.

C] ANTICIPATORY BAIL

Even though Section 438 doesn't use the term "anticipatory bail," it is evident that the
topic it covers is covered. Actually, the term "anticipatory bail" is inaccurate. It's not
like the court now releases someone on bond before they are arrested. A person is
ordered to be freed on bail in the event of an arrest when the court grants "anticipatory
bail." Evidently, unless a person is arrested, there is no question of their release on
bond.
Anticipatory bail, which ensures freedom until the standard bail application is decided
by the Court, is granted in advance of an arrest. Anticipatory bail is the process of
applying for bail in advance before being arrested when a person has a good reason to
believe that he may be detained by the police for a crime for which there is no
possibility of release on bond. This action is known as anticipatory bail. If the
individual's application was approved, he must present the court's anticipatory bail
order when the police arrive to arrest him. Upon providing the order, the person will be
released on bond. Every person who has been accused of committing or taking part in
a non-bailable crime or offence has the option of anticipatory bail. It happens very
infrequently that the court has discretion to grant or deny a suspect's request for
anticipatory bail in cases when it is not a requirement. The court may grant the
application if it determines at any moment that anticipatory bail may be granted.
Precautions must be made in order to avoid an act occurring in the future that is
anticipated. The term "anticipatory" refers to the assumption or anticipation of
something. In cases where anticipatory bail is permitted by the court, the arrestee will be
freed on bond and the anticipatory bail will only be used in certain circumstances.8

D] DEFAULT BAIL

The phrase "default bail" has not appeared in any provisions of the Code. The term
"default bail" was created for convenience by judges and attorneys involved in the bail
jurisdiction. Default bail simply refers to legally required bail that an accused person in
jail is entitled to receive if an investigating officer fails to complete the investigation
within the allotted amount of time. This sort of bail is commonly referred to as "the
default bail" since it is given when a charge-sheet is not filed within the required amount
of time. Another name for it is "compulsory bail." When an investigation does not
conclude within the 60 or 90 days specified in Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, the court may occasionally have to deal with this issue. The only option
left to the court in this circumstance is to grant bail for the offender. The default is the
common name for this kind of bail release under statutory conditions. This clause
appears to be justified by the idea that someone cannot be detained indefinitely on the
basis of insufficient evidence or an inadequate inquiry. The legislature, in its wisdom,
set a deadline of60 or 90 days, depending on the situation, for concluding the probe.

The police are required to provide the court with a complete picture of the investigation
within this time frame so that the court can determine whether or not the accused
should be freed on bond, if he should remain in detention, and whether the case merits
going to trial.9

The Supreme Court ruled in Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic
Control Bureau, New Delhi, that an order for release on bail issued pursuant to proviso
(a) of Section 167(2) may properly be referred to as an order-on-default. Indeed, the
8
P.V. Ramakrishna, Law of Bails, Universal Law Publishing, Ninth Edition, 2016 at p. 246. For the full text of
Section 167, see Part III of this book.
9
AIR 1990 SC 71 (paras 12, 13) : (1989) 3 SCC 532 . Note: In Aslam Babalal Desai AIR
1993 SC 1 : (1992) 4 SCC 272
prosecution's failure to file the charge sheet within the required time resulted in the
release on bail. Under proviso (a) of Section 167(2), the right to bail is unassailable. It is
a statutory mandate, not a matter for the courts to decide. The accused in detention
should be freed on bond if the investigating agency fails to file a charge-sheet before
the passage of 90 or 60 days, as the case may be. However, the case's merits should not
be considered at that time. In reality, the Magistrate lacks the authority to keep an
accused person in custody for longer than the 90/60 day limit. He must issue a bail
order and inform the accused in order for them to provide the necessary bail bonds.
Because default bail is required by law, the earlier merits-based rejection of a bail
application has no bearing on the release of an accused person on default bail. It is
emphasized in Union of India v. Thamisharasi10 that the merits of the case should not
be discussed when a request fordefault bail is made.

10
Union of India v. Thamisharasi
[Link] OF BAIL BY MAGISTRATE UNDER SECTION 437

The Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 gave bail-granting authority to:

[Link] officer-in-charge of police station

[Link]
[Link] Court
[Link] Court

The Indian Supreme Court does not frequently hear cases involving bail. However, in
extreme cases, the Supreme Court may exercise its authority under Article 136 of the
Indian Constitution to review the validity of bail orders issued by High Courts.

Subject to the terms of any specific statute restricting the powers of the Sessions Court
or the High Court, both Sessions Courts and High Courts have the authority to release
a person accused of any crime, including those punished by a death sentence or life in
prison. High Courts and the Session's Court have virtually unlimited authority to grant
bail. The only prerequisite is that the Session's Court and High Courts must operate
legally, and that their decision to grant or deny bail must be based on a comprehensive
examination of the relevant circumstances and established legal standards.
According to Section 437(7)11, the court must release the accused, if he is in custody,
upon the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear
judgement delivered if, at any time following the conclusion of the trial of a person
accused of a non-bailable offence and prior to judgement being delivered, the court is
of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of any such offence.

11
Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure
As a result, Section 437's bail provisions for offences that are not subject to bail are
balanced. The accused is entitled to bail if there is cause to suspect that he hasn't
committed any crimes for which release cannot be granted. The accused is typically
eligible to bail if the trial is postponed without the accused's fault for more than 60
days from the scheduled date for the taking of evidence. Regardless of whether the
offence carries a death sentence or a life term, the magistrate may release a woman
accused, a person under the age of 16, or a person who is old, sick, or infirm. The
magistrate must record any particular justifications in writing before releasing an
accused person who committed a crime carrying a death or life sentence.12

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973's general provisions provide that unless it is
obvious to the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable question or
unbelievable, bail will not be granted to a person accused of committing a non-bailable
offence punishable by death or life imprisonment. The investigation of the magistrate
in this situation would resemble that which was envisioned in State of Haryana v.
Bhajanlal, 13 i.e., that the accused's alleged complicity should, based on the factual
matrix then presented or predominating, result in the overwhelming, unquestionable,
and clear conclusion of his innocence. The Court of Sessions and the High Court's
authority is unaffected and undisturbed by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which
significantly restricts the magistrate's authority.

[Link] RIGHTS AND BAIL:

A] CONCEPT IN DIFFERENT CONSTITUTION

In India, the common law rule that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty

12
Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 1745: 2014 (4) SCALE 215: 2014 Cr LJ2245
13
State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal
beyond a reasonable doubt is in effect. Bail is a post-arrest and pre-trial remedy for a
person who is alleged to be accused based on some prima facie evidence but has not
yet been found guilty since the trial or investigation is pending, with the exception of
anticipatory bail under Section 438. Bail is the release of a person from custody under
the condition that he will appear at the time and location specified, since bail is typically
granted prior to conviction, that is, only after receiving certain complaints and
undergoing an investigation. As he has not yet been charged or found guilty and
because our criminal justice system is predicated on the presumption of innocence
until and unless proven guilty, there has been some type of intrusion by the police into
the arrestee's right to liberty. Therefore, the idea of bail comprises two aspects: on the
one hand, the right to personal liberty given by Article 21 of the Constitution14; and on
the other, the need to ensure the safety and security of society, which necessitates some
restriction on the suspect's freedom. So that the individual liberty of the person, which
is guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the
societal interest to apprehend the person suspected or accused can be reconciled, the
person is released on bail or under a bond.

Fundamental rights are not brand-new; rather, they are inalienable rights that come
with being a human. They are acknowledged as unbreakable or untouchable. According
to the Constitution, legislation that violate or interfere with basic rights are invalid,
unless they fall within certain parameters that allow for their restriction. No law that
restricts or limits these rights may be passed by the state. Any law passed in violation
of this restriction is invalid to the extent of the violation.15

Blackstone stated his concept of natural or absolute rights, which he condensed into
three fundamental or main points, in his renowned commentaries on the Laws of
England.

14
Article 21 of Constitution of India
15
P.V. Ramakrishna, Law of Bails, 9th edition, 2016, Universal Law Publishing, p. 74.
1. The first is the right to personal safety.

2. The right to individual freedom.

3. Private property rights.

As Liberty holds a prominent position in our sociopolitical system. The men who created our
Constitution were the best people to understand the value of liberty. According to Article 21 of
the Constitution, no one may be deprived of their personal freedom other than in accordance
with a legal process. Therefore, it follows that a person's personal freedom can be limited by a
legal process. One such procedural law is the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The law
allows for the restriction of anti-social and anti-national elements' freedom. In the case that a
person is arrested on suspicion of committing a crime against society or the nation, Article 22
imposes certain duties on the authorities. The court is typically summoned in cases of under-
trials charged with committing an offence or offences to determine whether to release the
defendant on bond or to condemn him to jail.
 [Link] RIGHTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIARELATING TO
PROTECTION OF LIBERTY:

The Indian Constitution is a written document that has been made flexible. It has elements of
both the unitary and federal systems of government because it establishes the president as the
supreme head of state, as in the American Constitution, while maintaining parliamentary
government, as in Great Britain. A Bill of Rights was demanded to be included in the future
Constitution in the Moti Lal NehruReport of 1929.

There was no formal declaration of fundamental rights under British rule prior to the
Constitution of India, which took effect on January 26, 1950, but the Government of India
Act, 1833 and later the Government of India Act, 1915 did contain some rudiments in the
nature ofthe subjects' fundamental rights.

Several of the Articles 12-35 in Part III of the Indian Constitution deal with fundamental
rights. In the instance of Golak Nath, the Constitution itself declares that fundamental rights
are natural rights. Although bail was not included in the Indian Constitution as a fundamental
right, it is implied in Article 21 as a part of personal liberty due to judicial activism. The
freedom and equality of the individual as guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian
Constitution shall always be the centre of the judiciary's discretion in determining bail.

A. ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND BAIL

The supreme law of India is found in its Constitution. All of the country's citizens have
access to thefundamental rights, however some of them are also available to individuals.
While Article 14 applies to both citizens and non-citizens, it ensures equality before the law
or the equal protection ofthe laws inside the territory of India. This demonstrates that the
 Indian legal system does not take anindividual's nationality into account while allowing him
or her access to the bail provisions. In India, giving bail to a foreign national is done
without distinction or discrimination.16

B. ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees both life and personal liberty. The
term "personal liberty" used there has been given a broad and liberal interpretation.
Personal liberty would therefore include the freedom to interact with family and
friends, subject, of course, to any current jail conditions. Any prison rule or practise
governing the ability to speak with family and friends is subject to being declared
invalid for violating Articles 14 and 21 if it is capricious or irrational.

The grouping of Article 21, Articles 19, 20, and Article 21 is known as the "right to
freedom." The most fundamental of all rights, the right to life and personal freedom, is
guaranteed by thisarticle.

It is applicable to everyone, not just citizens, as Article 19 specifies. Our constitutional

system recognises personal liberty as a fundamental commodity that is taken away when
bail is denied under Article 21. The fundamental right to personal liberty for an accused
individual or convicted person should only be violated in accordance with the legal
process. The human rights' life is summed up in the final four words of Article 21.

It is no longer acceptable to argue that the right to personal liberty can be restricted,
even temporarily, by a system that is not reasonable, fair, and just when a statute itself
provides for a just procedure, it must be upheld, as was stated in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India. It would be against the reasonable, fair, and just procedure to conduct a

16
Article 14 of the Constitution of India
search under Section 50 without first notifying the suspect that he has the right to be
searched in front of a gazetted officer or a magistrate, rendering the protection provided
by Section 50 illusory.

It is no longer acceptable to argue that the right to personal liberty can be restricted,
even temporarily, by a system that is not reasonable, fair, and just when a statute itself
provides for a just procedure, it must be upheld, as was stated in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India. It would be against the reasonable, fair, and just procedure to conduct a
search under Section 50 without first notifying the suspect that he has the right to be
searched in front of a gazetted officer or a magistrate, rendering the protection provided
by Section 50 illusory.

Article 21's goal is to prevent an appropriate authority from interfering with a person's
right to privacy unless doing so is allowed by law and in compliance with its provisions.
The Supreme Court ruled in Bashira v. State of U.P. that the legal process must be strictly
followed and cannot be changed to the detriment of the person who will be affected
before a person's life or personal freedom is taken away. In a similar vein, the Supreme
Court noted in Narender v. B.B. Gujral that if a subject's liberty is at stake, whether
under a penal law or a statute requiring preventive detention, the Court has a duty to
ensure that "all the safeguards afforded by the law have been scrupulously maintained."
The Supreme Court of India has provided guidance on an arrested person's rights in
light of Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution in Joginder Kumar v. State of
Uttar Pradesh139. The Supreme Court further declared that the government's ability to
detain people without charge under the 1974 Act for the Preservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities is subject to the restrictions placed
on its use by Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution, as interpreted by this Court.

C. ARTICLE 21 AND RIGHT TO BAIL

No one may be deprived of their life or personal liberty, unless in accordance with the
legal process, according to Article 21 of The Constitution of India. The constitutionally
protected right to personal freedom is severely curtailed by an arrest or incarceration.
Restraint or denial of one's personal freedom is referred to as an arrest. An arrest is
bringing someone into custody legally in order to hold or detain him while he faces a
charge of a crime or to stop one from being committed. Legally speaking, an arrest
occurs when a person's freedom is revoked by a court order. Protection from arbitrary
arrest and unlawful detention is provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It
states that no one may be held in custody unless it is authorised by law. It is crucial to
note that even if someone has been legally detained, they must remain in custody for the
time necessary to conduct a criminal investigation or when there is a danger that they
will elude capture or tamper with the course of justice. However, the Indian
Constitution and other secondary laws allow for a person to be released on bond and
enjoy his or her personal freedom even while the inquiry into the crime is ongoing. India
offers defence against capricious detention or arrest. Pre-trial custody of an accused
person entails the imposition of what would otherwise be considered punishment. It
also interferes with his family, job, or business, impairs his liberty, and makes it
difficult to put together a defence, among other things. The bail system allows for the
provisional release of an accused person on surety. On the day of the trial, the surety is
required to present the defendant. Bail is so crucial to maintaining 52 Article 21 of The
Constitution of India, 1950. the right to personal freedom for each person. In a technical
sense, it is a guarantee made for the accused's prompt appearance in order to secure his
release from custody; a short-term release of an accused from custody. The 1973 Code
of Criminal Procedure does not define the term "bail," rather it includes offences that
are and are not subject to bail. Black's Law Dictionary states that the purpose of bail is
to secure a person's release from custody by promising that they would appear at the
appointed time and location and submit to the jurisdiction and judgement of the court.

While an individual's freedom is valuable and should always be protected, this protection
can only be provided to those who deserve it because the term "protection" cannot by itself
be deemed to be absolute in any and every situation but instead stands qualified depending
on the exigencies of the situation.

According to this viewpoint, the society has to be protected from these elements in the
event that a horrific crime is committed since these individuals are capable of sowing
panic among the populace and upsetting their peace of mind. According to the facts of
the case, the protectionmust therefore be granted with due caution.

The Supreme Court ruled in Narendra v. Gujral that anytime a subject's liberty is at
stake, regardless of whether it falls under criminal law or a legislation requiring
preventive detention, the court has a duty to ensure that all legal protections have been
carefully followed. According to the Gopalan case, the term "deprived" has been used
to refer to a complete loss of liberty and is not applicable when there is a constraint on
the right to freedom of movement, which is covered by Article 19(1). (d). The Supreme
Court has not followed the above-restricted definition of the word "deprived" in
subsequent rulings. When there is a constraint, the position stated in Gopalan's case has
been adjusted.

The extent of Article 21 and the dimensions of the right to liberty are enormous. There are
numerous additional elements that add value to life. Various additional facets of life that
were touched upon in the Olga Tellis68 case The right to labour is the most valuable
freedom since it allows and supports a man to survive, and the right to life is a valuable
freedom, according to the Supreme Court. According to Field J. in Munn v. Illinois, life refers
to more than just animal existence, and the prohibition against its deprivation includes all the
boundaries and faculties that allow for the enjoyment of life.17

[Link] 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Protection from arrest and, in some circumstances, wrongful imprisonment. In

circumstancesof preventative detention, personal freedom is protected by four rules.

17
Article 21of the Constitution of India
[Link] detainee must be given a very early opportunity to make a representation by the
detainingauthority.

[Link] detaining authority shall take the representation into consideration as quickly as
feasible,ideally before it is referred to the advisory bodies.

[Link] advisory board must receive the representation before the board issues its report.

Since speed is crucial at every level, the detaining authority's examination of the
representation mustbe completely independent of the board's hearing or report.

The courts have also determined that detention will only be considered justified if it
was required for a legitimate reason, such as preventing the disruption of public order,
reasonable suspicion of the commission of the crime alleged against the accused, and
the seriousness of the offence. Other reasons include failure to appear at trial,
tampering with evidence or witnesses, obstructing justice, risk of committing an
offence while out on bail, being at harm or risk to oneself or others, and failure to
attend trial. In particular, Principles Nos. 9, 12, 13, and 36 (2) and Rule 3 of the United
Nations Standard Minimum Rule for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment contain the rights to liberty and againstarbitrary detention.

According to the ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the process described in
Article 21 must be just, fair, and equitable. The legal process must be strictly followed
and cannot be changed to the detriment of the individual who will be affected before a
person's life and personal freedom are taken away. The Supreme Court has provided
guidance regarding the rights of those who have been arrested in light of Articles 21
and 22 in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Justice V.R. Krishna
Iyer said in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, that denying bail robs a person of the personal liberty protected by Article 21.
Granting bail is a huge trust that can be exercised legally and with keen consideration
for the cost to the offender and the community.
In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. C.B.I., the court observed that while Article 21 is crucial, it is
also important to strike a balance between the freedom of the person facing an accusation of
a crime and the needs of society. No right can be exercised without acceptable limitations,
and no right can be granted in its entirety. Because the reasons for bail must depend on the
contextual facts and circumstances, it is impossible to say that the grant of bail owing to
protracted incarceration is an absolute norm.18

18
Article 22 of the Constitution of India
7. RESEARCH DESIGN

7.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY:

I want to assess the bail arrangements that are currently in place in this study. the
grounds for granting bail while using judicial discretion. Anytime a court receives a
request for bail, it must first determine if the crime the accused is facing charges for is one
that can be released on bail. Without further ado, bail shall be granted in accordance with
Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which is comparable to Section 496
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (of 1898), if the offence is one that is bailable;
However, if the offence is not bailable, additional factors will come into play, and the
court will decide whether to grant bail in light of those factors. These additional factors
include the nature and seriousness of the offence, the nature of the evidence,
circumstances unique to the accused, a reasonable chance that the accused won't be
present at the trial, a reasonable suspicion that witnesses will be tampered with, and the
larger interests of the public. It is obvious that an unnecessarily prolonged detention in
prison or while awaiting trial is against the law and justice, which is the primary goal of
the Indian constitution, by stating in the preamble of the constitution, equal justice to
every person, the law of bails should have too much discretion in the grant of bail, and
guidelines must be codified. The study will add to the bail literature. Bail is a legal right,
and it must be provided in the interests of liberty. Every other year, the parliament passes
strict legislation that are devoid of any protections for innocent people who might be
detained on suspicion.

7.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

In accordance with the terms of section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Act 51 of
1977, the accused in Namibian law does not have a right to bail but does have a right to
request for bail. The Namibian Constitution, which is the supreme law, does not contain an
article on bail or bail applications in particular, despite the significance of a bail application
for the protection of an accused's rights to personal liberties, legal counsel, and the
presumption of innocence until proven guilty. As a result, the criminal justice system suffers
from procedural inefficiencies that are harmful to the rights of an accused person making a bail
application. This led the researcher to critically evaluate the formal bail application process'
effectiveness the rights of the accused and all the difficulties that go along with it.

In the famous case of Narasimhulu v/s public prosecutor, justice Krishna Iyer remarked that :
The subject of bail belongs to the blurred area of the criminal justice system and largely hings
on the hunch on the bench, otherwise called as judicial discretion.

It is imperative that discretion must be exercised with caution and care and must be applied by
balancing the interests of both justice and personal liberty of individuals. It must not be
arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal amd regular. The recent trend of arbitrariness in
exercising discretion has been a serious road block in achieving the ends of justice. In cases
involving high-profile individuals, bail is granted without consideringthe enormity of the case.

These individuals walk free when the people affected by them reel in injustice. It has become
a norm than an aberration in most jurisdictions including india that the powerful, which and
influential obtain bail promptly and with ease, whereas the mass/ common /

Another major problem in the bail system is the amount of bail bond set by the court. The
economic and financial situation of a person and must be considered before courts reach a
decision regarding the amount of bail.

From the analysis of data and statistics in the law commission report, it can be observed that a
majority of under trail prisoners i.e 70.6% are illiterate of semi-illiterate which is an indicator
of poor economic background. They are trapped in the vicious cycle of poverty and illiteracy
coupled with a continuous violation of there right to personal liberty and dignity. An accussed
persons economic status appears to have become the decisive factor for granting pre-trail
release.
 7.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

To study more about the shortcomings of the Indian bail system, where granting bail is
essentially a question of personal judgement So such discretion has to be exercise not
arbitrarily but judiciously on the basis of norms which by now have become fairly
established but not followed properly.

I. The study will aid in the examination of anticipatory bail in order to prevent the accused
criminal from concealing evidence.
II. Our bail system suffers from a property-oriented strategy that seems to proceed on the
mistaken assumption that fear of financial loss is the main deterrence against escaping from
justice. Examples include incidents of acid attacks, gang rape, offences against children, etc.
III. The study will focus on the drawback of refusing bail for little and petty offences because of
excessive money as a security.

7.4 LITERATURE REVIEW:

I. Ratanlal &Dhirajlal: Indian Penal Code, 12th edition-

The law of bail, bonds, arrest, and custody is extensively covered in this book. Bail is a tool
used to reduce the negative effects of a delay in the start of a trial. To help readers grasp the
fundamental subtleties of the law, the author pays close attention to the essence of the law of
bails, the guiding principles upon which it is based, and the practical guidelines associated with
its administration. The most recent Supreme Court and High Court rulings have been amply
supplemented.

II. V.R. KRISHNA AYER, GRANT OF BAIL: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,

In GudikantiNarsimulu v. Public Prosecutor43, Justice V.R. Krishna Ayer wrote in his
decision that "the significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty,
whether temporary or permanent, a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the
law authorising it is reasonable, impartial, and geared to the goals of community good and
State necessity" .

III. S.N. MISHRA, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, CENTRAL

LAWPUBLICATIONS, 20TH - EDITION (REP.), 2017

The author of Legislation of Bail Practice and Procedure explains how bail law is crucial to the
administration of justice. The Law of Bail Practice and Procedure has been designed as a
practical reference guide to meet the needs of attorneys and judges in routine court proceedings.
The law of bail is of utmost importance since it is intimately linked to a person's liberty, which
is protected by a constitutional provision.

THE RESEARCHER HAS ALSO GONE THROUGH THE BOOK OF M.P. JAIN, OUTLINES
OF INDIAN

The researcher has used pertinent passages from this work, which the author used to discuss the
concepts of everyone's fundamental rights to life and [Link] to Asim Pandey, the
law of bail plays a crucial part in the administration of justice in his book Law of Bail Practice
and Procedure. The Law of Bail Practice and Procedure has been designed as a practical
reference guide to meet the needs of attorneys and judges in routine court proceedings. The law
of bail is of utmost importance since it is intimately linked to a person's liberty, which is
protected by a constitutional provision.

In his book "Bail Law and Procedures," Janak Raj Jai goes into great detail about how it is a
well-established legal principle that granting bail is the norm and refusing bail is the exception.
Unfortunately, the majority of our country's courts do not uphold the letter and spirit of the law.
The most important fundamental rights—personal liberty and the right to life—are guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be infringed upon by any organisation or bodyA
government that isn't based on liberty and justice cannot exist. All of the great city wrecks, all
of the extinct nations, and all of the wrecks on either side of the stream of time serve as a
warning that no nation built on injustice can endure. Thus, when bail is denied, a citizen's
personal liberty is unquestionably taken away. A constitutional system recognised by Article
21 of the Constitution is too precious to be taken lightly. Since an accused person's personal
liberty is vital, it can only be legitimately limited through the legal process. The author of this
book made a very modest attempt to discuss the laws and process for the grant of bail in
accordance with the word and spirit of the law of the land while keeping in mind that every
single citizen has a fundamental right, regardless of caste, colour, or faith.

Ms. Kelly Anne Collins, This article's section on Queensland bail laws gives a general
summary of the state's existing bail regulations. The Queensland Law Reform Commission of
1993 issued reform suggestions. Each justice has concerns while deciding whether to grant bail
to a criminal. The right of a person to the presumption of innocence and his or her right to
liberty in relation to society have the power to ensure that members of the public are identified
as having committed a crime and that they will face punishment. These two requirements need
to be balanced with one another. It may not be appropriate to strike a balance between the risk
to the public safety posed by the accused's release and the accused's limited personal freedom.
This article's goal is to provide a review of the fundamental right of the accused to be released
on bail. It focuses primarily on the rights of the arrested person to be presumed innocent until
his guilt is established and, at the same time, to ensure that the community is safe from being
disrupted by those who are charged with criminal offences by detaining them. In addition, the
crime victims demanded that the process for obtaining bail be strengthened so that those
accused of serious or hazardous crimes should not be granted release so readily.

7.5 HYPOTHESIS:

[Link] cannot be just granted when there are strong justifications for believing something is
true.
[Link] SC's bail criteria need to be reviewed in order to guarantee better freedom because they
have not yet provided the accused with true freedom.

[Link] the current standards for approving and rejecting bail are sufficient.

[Link] the communal interest trumps individual liberty when it comes to some terrible
crimeslike gang rapes and acid attacks as well as denying bail.

[Link] a simple monetary bond is adequate or whether more stringent bail security is
required.

[Link] the criteria in place for using judicial discretion meet the needs of the time..

7.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The researcher has selected doctrinal research as their technique of inquiry for this
study on the bail laws in India. The systematic investigation of statutory provisions
and the legal principles they include or originate from, as well as the logical
arrangement of the legal propositions and principles, are all components of doctrinal
legal research. Rules, doctrines, notions, and judicial declarations pertaining to
substantive law are highlighted. The study is structured around the legal arguments
and court rulings that support the legal arguments of the appellate body, as well as
other statutory materials that disclose the legislative intent and provide background
on the doctrine. Documentary study will give the researcher a good understanding of
the laws, constitutional clauses, and other laws for the promotion of the bail law.

A. PRIMARY SOURCES:

This mainly included Constituent Assembly Debates, Reports of Law

 Commission, recommendations of the Second Press Commission, judicial
verdicts, judgment etc

B. SECONDARY SOURCES:

In addition to books produced by distinguished academics, reputable articles andresearch

papers from both national and international periodicals were consulted. Only secondary
sources—doctrinal research—have been used in this study. These sources include books,
articles, and journal publications, as well as numerous websites, blogs, and other internet
resources.

D. SURVEY AREA:

The problems of white collar crime is rampant throughout the country but the survey area
covered by the researcher is the district Aurangabad in Maharashtra State. The issue of White-
collar crime is concerning though out the whole country but it is practically impossible to
cover the country for empirical research. Hence the researcher has taken into consideration
the district Aurangabad where the researcher resides and studies, so it was convenient for the
researcher to carry out the empirical research in this district so as to complete the research in a
proper manageable time.

D. SAMPLE SIZE:

To build up the sampling frame, a total of 50 respondents were interviewed. Out of which 30
are Advocates and rest 20 are people from the general masses as well as students from the
legal fraternity.

E. TOOLS OF SURVEY:

A questionnaire was prepared to have in-depth interaction with respondents. The

questionnaire is focusing on social, economic, legal and emotional angles of respondents.

F. COLLECTION OF DATA:

People from the Legal fraternity including practicing Advocates, Law teachers and law
students were taken into consideration and were selected as interviewers. The questionnaire is
prepared and the data has been collected through questionnaire as well as by personal
interviews of the above personnel from the district of Aurangabad in Maharashtra state. For
collecting more precise data the common people have also been interviewed by circulating
questionnaire duly prepared for the purpose of empirical study The researcher has sought
suggestions from the Legal luminaries and common people at large.

G. ANALYSIS OF DATA:

In present research researcher has asked around 13 questions to each respondent from the
general category and the legal fraternity and selected 13 case histories for the purpose of this
research.
To enable objective analysis of this research it was necessary to quantify the data. These
subjective responses were classified into discrete categories and the data was fed into the
computer for analysis. Later on, statistical test was applied to see, what kind of reasons

H. LIMITATION:

As the topic of research is very vast hence the researcher has tried to keep it limited by
studying the various causes which are responsible for the increase in the white collar crime in
today’s society, and to complete the study in a manageable time the researcher has conducted
survey in the district of Aurangabad only.
[Link] ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED DATA

Question No.1 Do you believe that the current bail system in India is fair ?

Responses 10 Yes-4 No-6

yes
no 40%
60%

yes no

Question No.2 Do you think that personal liberty is adequately protected ?

Responses 10 Yes-7 No-3

responses
8

0
yes no

responses
Question No.3 Do you think that the process of obtaining bail is too lengthy ?

Responses 10 Yes-8 No-2

Responses

no

yes

0 2 4 6 8 10

Responses

Question No.4 Should the criteria for granting bail be more stringent for
serious offenses ?

Responses 10 Yes-8 No-2

Responses

20%

80%

Yes No
Question No.5 Do you believe that the availability of bail affects the rate of
crime ?

Responses 10 Yes-3 No-7

Responssess

no

yess

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Responssess

Question No.6 Is the lack of legal representation a significant barrier in the bail
process ?

Responses 10 Yes-8 No-2

Responses

20%

80%

Yes No
Question No.7 Do you think that bail should be granted more readily to first-
time offenders ?

Responses 10 Yes-3 No-7

Responses
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Yes No

Responses

Question No.8 Are you aware of any reforms proposed for the bail system in India ?

Responses 10 Yes-2 No-8

Responses

Yes No
Question No.9 Have you seen any reforms in bail laws in last few years ?

Responses 10 Yes-7 No-3

Responses
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Yes No

Responses

Question No.10 Do you think that the police misuse their power regarding bail?

Responses 10 Yes-9 No-1

Responses
10

0
Yes No

Responses
[Link] CONCLUSION

In our sociopolitical system, liberty is a source of pride. And no one

understood the value of liberty better than our Constitution's founding fathers.
For this reason, they stipulated in Article 21 of the Constitution that no one
may be stripped of their personal liberties until doing so in accordance with a
legal process. Therefore, it follows that a person's personal freedom can be
limited by a legal process. One such procedural law is the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Under-trials who are accused of committing an offence or
offences are typically brought before the court for a ruling on whether to grant
bail or place them in jail. This choice must be made primarily in non-bailable
cases, taking into account the crime's nature, the circumstances surrounding
its commission, the background of the accused, the likelihood that he will
violate his bail conditions, the impact of his release on the prosecution's
witnesses, the impact on society, the possibility of retaliation, etc.

According to the 268th report of the Indian Law Commission, 67 percent of

prisoners in India are still behind bars awaiting trial. One of the factors
contributing to the overcrowding of jails nationwide and creating new
problems for the prison administration may be the inconsistent application of
the bail system. The principles and goals enshrined in the Preamble of the
Indian Constitution, namely, economic, social, and political justice, have a
special relationship with the freedoms provided by Part III of the
Constitution. It continues to be one of the republic's most important duties,
and achieving it fully is one of its most valued objectives.

Moderation is necessary for the right to a fair trial, not only toward the person
charged with a crime but also toward the general public and society as
represented by the State. Additionally, it must inspire faith in the criminal
justice system among the general public, especially members of the accused's
family and those harmed by the crime.

As a result of the financial bond used as security to ensure the accused's

appearance at the time of trial, bail has grown into a significant industry. The
Indian judiciary is judge- and state- centered. The adage "bail is denied as a
rule and granted as an exception" It is a fallacy that bail is a rule and
incarceration is an exception; in reality, the opposite is true. The just and
human aspects should be taken into consideration while exercising judicial
discretion. As it should be disregarded that, in addition to the democratic
concept of liberty, some gruesome, horrific, and inhuman offences do not
warrant the granting of bail. In a bail application, the jurisdiction to issue bail
must be exercised in accordance with established rules, taking into account
the specifics of each case. The Court must take into account the nature of the
accusations, the nature of the evidence used to prove them, the standing
character and behaviour of the accused, and a reasonable fear of being
tempered with the larger interests of the state and public when granting bail.
The worst case scenario is when a respectable member of society who has
been imprisoned on a mere suspicion is forced to reside in prison because bail is
refused. On the other hand, because of their inability to provide a security
deposit, some prisoners who are imprisoned due to poverty are denied bail,
as was the case in Hussainera Khatoon v. State of Bihar. In these types of
cases, bail should be granted on the basis of legitimate reasons in order to
properly exercise the judicial discretion to do so. In State of Rajasthan v.
Balchand, the trial court found the defendant guilty. The High Court upheld
his acquittal after he filed an appeal. Through a special leave petition, the
State appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in accordance with Article 136
of the Constitution. The Court ordered the accused to show up. Then he made
a bail request. Justice Krishna Iyer spoke out against this unjust bail
management system at that point for the first time. Although the practise of
financial bail has a long history, he claimed that it is time to reconsider. It's
possible that an endeavour would be useful in most situations. Courts
addressed the idea in the same way they did while implementing the right to
innocence. The standard that a bail applicant had to meet in order to be freed
from detention has always been the interests of justicecriterion.

A balance must be made between the right to individual liberty and the
interests of society, even while it is true that Article 21 of the Constitution is
very significant because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual
liberty. There can be legitimate limitations imposed on rights; none of them
can be absolute. While it is true that the length of time an accused has spent
in jail is one factor in determining whether or not to grant bail, the court must
also take other factors into account, such as the interests of society. Punitive
actions are legitimately allowed under the Constitution when necessary to
protect state security and the general welfare of the populace. However, an
accused person's personal liberty is fundamental and can only be limited via a
legal procedure.

Because it strives to balance the competing interests of the accused, who

wants to stay free, and the State, which must make sure the accused shows up
promptly for the trial, the bail system creates a tension in any criminal justice
system. 19 The current bail situation is a conundrum in the criminal justice
system because it was designed to make it easier for the accused to be
released but is now working against that release. However, according to the
bail rules found in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973's numerous sections,
the context in which they are utilised is to liberate someone by requiring
security for their appearance. When a police officer arrests someone for a crime
for which there is no provision for bail, he or she is required by existing legal
provisions under criminal law justice as well as the Indian Constitution to
inform that person that they are entitled to free legal aid and that they may
also apply to be released on bail. This is both desirable and necessary. As
far as feasible, the officer must explain the procedure to the defendant in a
language that is understandable to him. The Supreme Court instructed the
High Courts to give instructions to the lower courts in Hussain and Anr v.
Union of India, among other things, that bail applications be resolved within a
week. The Court further concluded that, in accordance with the spirit of
Section 436A of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an under trial
defendant who has served a time of custody that exceeds the sentence that
would likely be imposed if a conviction were to be entered must be freed on
personal bond . Two main objectives should be addressed by the procedures:
(1) preventing the danger that the accused will not show up on the planned
day; and (2) preventing threats to the community's or a particular person's
safety.

Pre-trial detention should be kept to a minimum. Being imprisoned has

negative effects on the individual accused of the crime who is detained there,
places an unproductive load on the State, and may have an impact on future
criminal behaviour. Its potential for reformation will also be lessened. Bail is
most commonly defined as the court-ordered release from custody of a person
who is being held on suspicion of a crime or who has been charged with an
offence, in exchange for a promise that the suspect or accused, as the case may
be, would appear to face the charges at a later time; The guarantee may include
release without any conditions, release on condition of furnishing security in
the nature of a bond, with or without sureties, release on condition of
furnishing other forms of security, or release based on any other condition, as
deemed sufficient by the court or police office author. It also includes grant of
bail to a person suspected of a crime or any accused person by a court or
police officer authorised by law currently in effect.

The Supreme Court has ruled that in general, it is preferable to give bail than to
refuse it because the major goal of it is to guarantee that an accused person
would appear for trial if he is released after being arrested. Therefore, it's
important to establish a balance between people's individual freedom and the
common good.

Many people are incarcerated for lack of bail, even in cases of minor
offences. It is a highly typical practise to keep someone who has been
detained in custody for an excessively lengthy time even though there isn't a
formal case against them.

As a result of the financial bond used as security to ensure the accused's

appearance at the time of trial, bail has grown into a significant industry. The
Indian judiciary is judge- and state-centered. The adage "bail is denied as a rule and
granted as an exception" It is a fallacy that bail is a rule and incarceration is an
exception; in reality, the opposite is true.
Punitive actions are legitimately allowed under the Constitution when necessary to
protect state security and the general welfare of the populace. However, an accused
person's personal liberty is fundamental and can only be limited via a legal
procedure.
 10. SUGGESTIONS

1. The Code's formulation of bail provisions may not be adequate on its own to
ensure that the bailsystem serves a purpose. It is most warranted to make a
significant effort to win public support and involvement in the administration of
criminal justice, along with the required legislative, executive, and judicial
capabilities. Such an endeavour alone could assist in establishing the
prerequisites necessary for the bail system to operate without interruption. In this
sense, the following areas require immediate attention:

(A) Proper functioning of police power,

(B) Creating the tools to regulate police power
(C) A speedy trial for the defendant;
(D) Access to legal representation from the outset of the criminal case until its conclusion.

2. It would be necessary to replace the current law on the issue with a

comprehensive code in order or the current bail law to function as intended.
The proposed code must incorporate the fundamental principles, purposes, and
guidelines for granting and rejecting bail. Specific reference of the
procedures on handling the cases of juveniles, lunatics, and those detained for
preventive purposes under special laws has become important in light of the
emergence of certain issues under the Human Rights jurisprudence.

3. The current statutory bail system must be procedurally clear and thorough.
Bail law reform is necessary, so clarity and consistency should take the place
of this ambiguity and uncertainty.

4. Since poverty is the cause of the majority of crimes, there should be a

concerted effort to reduce poverty and promote education. If this issue is
resolved, there will be fewer conflicts and hence fewer people who are
awaiting trial who are imprisoned.

5. Additionally, more courts need to be established, and open judgeship

positions need to be filled as away. The number of courts is insufficient to
handle all of the cases. Cases remain pending as a result of its shortcomings.
The problem is exacerbated by the judges' unfilled posts.

6. The rationality of the bail laws demands consideration of the fundamental

presumptions in favour of the issuance of bail with associated risks as well as
the identification of relevant variables for risk assessment.
7. When creating a new bail law, two crucial elements of the bail procedure
must be taken into account. They are I the police power to request remand
after an arrest and (ii) the police power to grant bail. When an arrest is made
according to a warrant, the law may specifically call for the granting of police
bail, unless the release is unwise for reasons that could be documented. It is
possible to apply this idea to summary offences as well. A police right to
request a surety may go along with the following cases' right to bail. The
police request for the issuance of remand shall only be taken into consideration
in the later scenario, where the initial police arrest was either unlawful or made
without a warrant, and only on the basis of the regulations that must be
statutorily stipulated in the code.

8. Although they shouldn't be limited to the statutory list, courts should have
the authority to set reasonable limits. However, it might be stipulated that the
terms must relate to the goal and function of bail. Specifically, making sure
the accused is present on the scheduled day and does not obstruct the
administration of justice. The criteria that must be considered in determining
the risks associated with an accused person's release on bail have already
been established by a number of court rulings. These elements, along with
any others that are required, might be listed to create clear standards that the
courts can apply when using their discretion.

11. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 A. ACTS

1. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

4. The Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

5. The Probation of offenders Act, 1958

6. In Juvenile Justice Act, 1988

7. Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic substances Act, 1985

8. Armed Forces (Special Powers Act) And the Assam disturbed Act, 1955

[Link] Indian Evidence Act, 1872

10. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act), 1956

B. ONLINE SOURCES

➢ [Link]
6789/671/11/Bail%[Link]

> [Link]
%[Link]

> [Link]

> [Link]
> [Link]
criticalanalysis/[Link]
9/671/11/B ail%[Link]

> [Link]
%[Link]

> [Link]

> [Link]

> [Link] 296

> [Link]
=UTF-8#q=law%20relating%20bail

> [Link]
=UTF-8#q=law%20relating%20bail

> [Link]

> [Link]
History%20of%20Bail%20
[Link]://[Link]/ba
[Link]

> [Link]

> [Link]

[Link]