Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 10
.
State of Rajasthan vs Balchand Alias Baliya (1997) 4 SCC 308
Submitted by:
Aney Verma Batch 2021-2026, B.A. LL. B PRN: 21010223004 Division: D
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune
In March 2024
Under the Guidance of
Dr. Sakshi Tiwari Symbiosis Law School NOIDA INDEX
S.No. Particulars Page No.
1. Facts of the case 2
2. Issues 3
3. Rules 3
4. Analysis 4,5,6,7
5. Conclusion 8
6. Bibliography 9
1 CASE - State of Rajasthan vs Balchand Alias Baliya (1997) 4 SCC 3081
COURT - Supreme Court of India.
BENCH - V.R. Krishnaiyer, N.L. Untwalia.
FACTS OF THE CASE
● Balchand gets entangled in a lawsuit and is convicted by the sessions
court. ● Balchand appeals the conviction. ● The High Court of Rajasthan passed a verdict which acquitted Balchand from the charges. ● The State of Rajasthan was displeased by the acquittal and filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the decision of the High Court. ● The court acquitted Balchand leading to his release on bail. ● While the government takes its appeal to the Supreme Court, Balchand surrenders to the court as ordered by law. ● After that, he filed a bail application, which asked the court to release him until the Supreme Court delivered its final judgement. ● The Supreme Court, led by Justice Krishna Iyer, hears arguments from both sides about Balchand's bail application. ● Upon weighing the facts and the law, the Supreme Court ordered the release of Balchand on bail.
1 State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay on 20 September, 1977. (n.d.). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8258/.
2 ISSUES
1. Whether Balchand should be granted bail during the pendency of the
State's appeal against his acquittal? 2. Whether the principle of bail is the rule, jail is an exception and innocent until proven guilty is lawful?
RULES
1. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
2. The principle of bail is the rule; jail is an exception. 3. The principle of innocent until proven guilty. 4. Section 437 of the Criminal Code of Procedure.
3 ANALYSIS
Analysis of issue number 1:
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Balchand. The court uses the concept of "No Threat to Justice" hinges on four key factors that the Supreme Court considered in the State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand Alias Baliay (1977) case.
1. Absence of Reason to Flee: The court took a very meticulous assessment as
to whether Balchand had a chance to escape. He did this by analysing his previous actions. Significantly, Balchand was granted bail until the end of the lower court hearing. This showed an openness to abide by the judge's conditions and make appearances in court. Besides, his voluntary surrender to the court after the High Court had exonerated him by their ruling depicts respect for the administration of justice. There was no sidestep of the court process at all. These factors, taken together, envisaged that Balchand would hardly run away on the heels of the deciding day of the Supreme Court appeal.
2. No Hint of Tampering with Evidence: The court evaluated whether
Balchand may have distressed evidence that could have helped the State during the time of the appeal. There was not a single piece of ironclad proof for Balchand to be seen as having a past manipulating evidence, nor did he have a motive for such in this particular case. Appears to be, with no sign of his possible manipulation, the court possibly allowed him to be on bail.
3. No Possibility of Public Harm: The court evaluated whether the release of
Balchand on bail could be viewed as a possible risk to the public security of by committing other offences. They probably inspected the nature of accusations against him and if he had a tendency to be violent or repeat offences. In the absence of just such data pertaining to the risk of public safety, the court was disposed to grant bail.
4 4. Witness Intimidation: The court examined whether Balchand could influence witnesses who could have testified against him at the appeal hearing. They most probably examined past examples of acts of intimidation and threats by Balchand. Yet, here again, the not-so-solid evidence of witness tampering gave the judges the chance to have a softer view of him in this regard.
The Supreme Court, after an examination of these components of "No Threat
to Justice", failed to find any argument that supported the notion Balchand was likely to jump bail, tamper with the evidence, commit other crimes, or intimidate the witnesses. This, coupled with the fact that he was presumed innocent, resulted in granting him bail pending the final verdict on the appeal.
5 Analysis of issue number 2:
The Supreme Court established the legal precept that "jail is an exception, bail is the rule" in the decision of the State of Rajasthan v. Balchand in 1978. The Indian Constitution guarantees various rights, the most significant of which is Article 21. These rights served as the foundation for the ruling. An individual's right to life and liberty, as protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, is violated when they are detained. The primary goal of incarceration is to facilitate simple legal proceedings by making the accused available for trial without causing them any difficulty. Therefore, it is not essential to imprison the accused if it can be guaranteed that they would be ready for the trial when needed.
The Indian Constitution's Articles 21 and 22(2) and the widely accepted "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty" give birth to the idea that bail is the norm and jail is the exception. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees a person's right to life and liberty, which cannot be taken away from them merely because they are accused of committing a crime until their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, no one's life or personal freedom may be taken away unless the legal process is followed, and even then, the process must be fair and reasonable.
Article 21 states that any process used to take away someone's life or freedom must be rational, just, and fair. If someone is unable to access legal services, a just, fair, and reasonable way suggests that he has a right to free legal services. It implies that you have a right to a prompt trial. It alludes to the incarceration of people, whether it be for deterrence or punishment.
6 In an unpredicted development, the Supreme Court in Arnab Goswami's 2018 2 case set him free. He was in police custody because of alleged charges of abatement of suicide. However, a lower court had previously refused him bail in grant to the ruling.
The Supreme Court's decision focuses on the major purpose of the legal system (the rule of law) and ensures freedom among the citizens by protecting their basic rights. They brought into it the matter more clearly that detaining someone without trial is unconstitutional according to the Indian Constitution's Article 21, guaranteeing freedom.
And lots are considering this as ground breaking measures, centering on
individual freedom and a reassuring legal system. However, critics say that the court does not always pass judgment that quickly in the cases of other accused persons.
One of the most significant principles is the presumption of innocence, that
guarantees a fair trial. It presumes that an individual is innocent unless he/she is proven guilty by the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. 3 This security also ensures that innocent people are not wrongly convicted and protects their freedom which is guaranteed as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The burden of proof is completely on the prosecutor. The accused should not be required to prove their innocence but the prosecutor should have to provide persuasive arguments that prove the accused guilty. Tipping the scales the other way would be unfair and could lead to a false conviction, thus taking the identity and character of the person away.
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 November, 2020. (n.d.).
2 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84792457/ Dataram Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 February, 2018. (n.d.). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122663958/ 3
7 CONCLUSION
The Indian court's system is in trouble with late fall behinds, which result in prolonged delays on the bail submissions."Bail should be the norm, and jail should be the exception"- the way things are is that obtaining bail may take weeks to months. Courts should listen to bail applications and do that in a week. Regrettably, it is often the case for people being kept behind bars without even being given a bail chance for months. This means that the people cannot receive justice as fast as necessary and that the basic principles of bail as the rule and not the exception are disturbed.
Both getting bail and the bail itself, of course, are quite important when it's about getting the bail of a regular citizen.
Although there have been even positive developments, they were not enough to improve the situation drastically. The Supreme Court Court states that bail should be the general rule for judges and also prompts them to take into consider mercy in their bail consideration. The court in another case, pointed out that the accused had already been detained despite that being before the official charge being made, a defence which brings the attention to correct procedures.
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay on 20 September, 1977.
(n.d.). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8258/
2. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27
