The Karnataka High Court recently denied bail to Imran Ahmed in connection with 2020 Bengaluru riots case, observing that legal principles such as “bail is the rule” cannot be repeated like a mantra or slogan in every bail petition without taking the context of the case into account.
A bench comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur made this observation that norms within a legal system, including the principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception,’ are not absolute and can vary depending on the circumstances. They emphasized that these norms are subject to change and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
It further noted that the precedent of considering jail as the exception was established several decades ago in a case involving offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court acknowledged that times have changed significantly, with daily newspapers reporting numerous terrorist acts. In light of these developments, the Court emphasized the need to reassess and adapt legal norms accordingly.
It stated, “Much water has flowed under the bridges and we are living in different times; every daily newspaper will have some report or photograph about the terrorist acts”.
Given the prevailing circumstances, the bench proceeded to remark that, “Almost all the norms in a legal system, be it civil or criminal, are relative; they are bound to the Society’s Calendar. With ceaseless run of Time, these norms undergo change in their texture & colour for retaining their relevance as a living law of the people … Norms of the kind cannot be chanted like mantra or slogans, in every bail petition out of the contextual circumstance.”
The accused, represented by advocate Mohammed Tahir, contended that the Court should take into account the importance of protecting basic human rights and uphold the principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Tahir also cited the dictum of Justice VR Krishna Iyer, stating that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception.”
However, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), representing the National Investigation Agency (NIA), opposed the bail application, emphasizing the serious nature of the alleged offenses. The SPP argued that an attack on a police station and its personnel amounted to an attack on the sovereignty of the country.
The SPP argued that the NIA had conducted a comprehensive investigation into the case, and the evidence presented on record prima facie demonstrated the accused’s involvement in serious offenses.
According to the SPP, the accused played a significant role in a terrorist group. Therefore, granting bail to the accused would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, as per the submissions made to the Court.
The Court recognized that norms governing individual behavior are influenced by the social conditions prevailing at the time of their formulation. It emphasized that the effectiveness and applicability of these norms are not fixed and may change over time, which the courts should consider.
Regarding the argument that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the Court acknowledged that this norm is not absolute and is subject to exceptions. It specifically highlighted the provision in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), specifically section 43-D(5), which imposes a negative burden on the accused.
The court said, “That being the position, we are not sure whether the doctrine of innocence can be readily invoked in the case at hand”.
Moreover, the Court recognized the validity of the Special Public Prosecutor’s argument that the Court should not be lenient towards the accused in serious cases like the present one. It highlighted that a chargesheet has already been filed by a specialized investigation agency, providing prima facie evidence of the accused’s involvement. The Court also took into consideration that both the trial court and a coordinating bench of the High Court had previously denied bail.
The Court concurred with the prosecution’s contention that, in bail matters, the Court must consider not only the rights of the accused but also the potential threat to society if the offenders were to be released from custody.
The Court emphasized that the collective interest of society should take precedence over the individual’s interest. In line with this principle, the Court concluded that the cause of justice would be better served by keeping the accused in custody.
Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged the need for a speedy trial considering that several accused were already in judicial custody due to the rejection of their bail applications. Consequently, while dismissing the bail application, the Court issued a directive for the case to be tried expeditiously, preferably on a day-to-day basis.
