Bail should be rule and not denied

by Gulshan Kumar Ajmani in Daily Dose

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

13 years ago

Kanimozhi of DMK and some others have been denied bail by a Delhi court for giving strong message.

It appears that courts are turning populist. It is well established that the element of punishment should not be there in any decision till the guilt is proved and conviction held. Bail should be denied only if the accused is likely to tamper with or destroy evidence or escape. Denying bail for giving message is a very disturbing idea.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/kanimozhi-to-appeal-for-bail-in-high-court-today-146772

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this topic on other bookmarking websites.

Sasikanth

751 10.8k 86.6k

13 years ago

#156007

The courts are doing good now a days and taking correct decisions towards rogues.

Earn money just for joining in this site.

http://www.money-friends.net/users/profile/en/155119.html

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

13 years ago

#156008

The courts are doing good now a days and taking correct decisions towards rogues.

The court should follow the legal procedure and 'not play to the gallery'. As a matter of fact, bail must be given unless the accused is likely or in a position to tamper with evidence. Punishment begins after conviction and not before. You cannot punish somebody before conviction.

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

Rajani K

145 7.14k 58.4k

13 years ago

#156139

I think even amar singh was not spared then how can these people expect.

pinakin thakre

51 322 2.34k

13 years ago

#156333

Bail is the main culprit in our judicial system by which most of the hard-core criminals and tainted politicians get away. Bail should be banned in India and punishment should be metted out to these persons in cases where there is large amount of evidence against them.

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

13 years ago

#156339

I think even amar singh was not spared then how can these people expect.

Amat singh has not only been granted bail but also permitted to go abroad for his medical treatment. Till some one is declared guilty, he is only an accused and cannot be punished. Hence nobody can be reasonably imprisoned till declared guilty after trial. Bail can be denied only if the accused is likely to escape or destroy/ tamper with evidence. Denying bail for giving message to public is clearly not lawful.

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

deepak

136 1.79k 13.4k

12 years ago

#163453

at last the culprits are out now on bail...waiting to see how things will unfold now....

sarala

384 12.8k 85k

12 years ago

#163454

I feel bail should be cancelled in the constitution. As most of the culprits are been escaping from the law.Now a days bail has become a fun thing. Government should be comes strict and should pass a rule that if there is most necessary only then only they should issue bail to the culprits.

Slow and Steady Wins the Race.

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

12 years ago

#163508

Nobody can be punished by retaining in jail unless convicted by a court. An innocent or one who is not yet pronounced guilty by a court cannot be punished. Punishment begins when court declares guilty. Before order of court, nobody should be in jail. Hence bail is given. Bail is denied only if the accused person may escape or tamper with evidence. The courts obtain bail bonds and appropriate security before granting bail. If the provision of bail is withdrawn, there will be no justice and also no meaning of conviction. If you can keep somebody in jail even though he is not yet declared guilty, this will be mockery of justice.

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

vidhimayur

6 831 5.29k

12 years ago

#163513

I think when court cancelled their bails it was a right decision because if court feels that the appealing party can tamper with the evidence or give threat to witness or can create any kind of obstacle in road of justice, it can deny bail. so it was a good decision although now the bail has been granted but if found by court that any of the above things are being done it can withdraw bail and reject it.

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

12 years ago

#163516

I think when court cancelled their bails it was a right decision because if court feels that the appealing party can tamper with the evidence or give threat to witness or can create any kind of obstacle in road of justice, it can deny bail. so it was a good decision although now the bail has been granted but if found by court that any of the above things are being done it can withdraw bail and reject it.

Court considers all relevant facts viz. past crime history, possibility of repeating similar crime and tampering with evidence or threat to witness etc. before granting a bail. also court obtains bail bonds and security before granting bail. There is a supreme court decision that bail should be rule and its denial an exception. Generally, bail should be granted.

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

Page 1 of 2

You do not have permissions to reply to this topic.

Title	Category	Replies
What are the impacts of modern technology on family communication?	Discussions	0
Women should get to wear whatever they want!	General Discussions	0
Understanding What Education Is?	Discussions	0
Whose birthdate is a lucky ?	General Discussions	0
importance of skill	Topics of Interest	0

Random Poll

Who will be our next P.M. after 2019 election?

Forum Categories

Trending Topics