Name of Sadhvi Pragya comes immediate to mind as I write this post.
Laws are different for bail when a person is accused of a crime in some terror related law.
In Part 16, I have discussed general law of bail. Here we are concerned with bail in terror related laws.
COURT SHALL NOT GRANT BAIL IF GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE SAYS "NO".
This is the tenor of all such laws.
Such laws say: When accused is charged under this law, the court will not grant bail 1) Without first giving notice to government ,and 2) Court will not grant bail if Government Advocate says "No".
Validity of such laws were challanged before Supreme Court. How can there be such a law which binds down hands of court in matter of grant of bail in obviously a false case?
How can "No" of Govt pleader can prevent court from granting bail?
After much debate, it was finally laid down 1) Such laws are valid 2) But court can grant bail even when Govt. Pleader says "No".. But in that case, the judge will have to write in his order that "I am satisfied that the accused will not commit any such act in future if I grant him bail"
This is the catch. Govt Advocate will say NO as per desire of political bosses. And few judges will have courage to take it upon themselves to certify that accused will not commit any such crime if he will grant him bail. How can a judge give such a certificate?
The laws are certainly bad.
Haresh Raichura
24/4/13
