Interference with bail only if liberty 'egregiously' harms justice: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stated that it can interfere with a bail order only when the continuation of liberty is 'so egregious that it undermines the administration of justice.' The court deprecated the routine practice of challenging bail orders under Article 136 of the Constitution, emphasising that its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction should be invoked only in exceptional cases.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan made the oral observations while hearing petitions by the Enforcement Directorate and the Chhattisgarh government challenging the bail granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in a liquor scam case.
Justice Bagchi questioned whether the apex court should examine every alleged legal infirmity in a bail order and curtail liberty on that basis alone. 'When the court interferes under Article 136, it does so on the anvil of whether the continuance of liberty is so egregious that it affects the administration of justice. Is it the correct approach, particularly for a court of last resort, to treat the legal artistry of a bail order as the sole and only test for depriving a person of liberty?' he said.
The judge expressed concern over the growing number of petitions challenging bail orders, noting that Article 136 jurisdiction was meant to be a 'repository of justice' for interpreting the Constitution, not an ordinary power of judicial review. 'We should dig deeper. Notwithstanding any illegality in a bail order, the question is whether the scales of justice warrant depriving a person of liberty on that basis alone. High Courts should ordinarily be the final arbiters of bail appeals,' he added.
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the state, argued that the High Court's order was 'perverse' and that bail had been granted on 'flimsy grounds.' He objected to adverse remarks made by the High Court against the state's Economic Offences Wing. 'He is influential, he is the son of a former Chief Minister. Your Lordships should at least expunge those remarks; otherwise, there will be great injustice to the investigating agency,' he submitted.
The Bench agreed that the remarks against the investigating agency were 'uncalled for' and ordered them expunged, but declined to interfere with the grant of bail. It clarified that all questions of law would remain open for the trial court at the appropriate stage.
Justice Bagchi also praised the precedent in Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that prolonged incarceration and undue delay in trial could override statutory restrictions on bail under anti-terror laws. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Baghel, noted that despite the ruling, courts had continued to distinguish it.
