Topic > Meaning of Bail

Justice as we know was a fundamental right for everyone, but his mistake is evident, as money now causes his downfall. Analyzed objectively, the criminal jurisprudence adopted by India is a mere reflection of the Victorian legacy left by the British. Over time there have only been a few amendments every now and then, to satisfy pressure groups and vote banks. Probably no thought has been given to whether these legislations, which have existed for almost seven decades, have taken into account the difficult and socioeconomic situation of the 70% of the population of this country who live in absolute poverty. India being a poverty-stricken developing country, needed nothing more than a blind copy of the legislations prevalent in developed Western countries. Even the concept of bail, which constitutes an integral part of criminal jurisprudence, suffers from the drawbacks indicated above. Bail is widely used to refer to the release of a person accused of a crime, provided he provides a bond ensuring his presence before the court or any other authority whenever required. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Bail means, by law, obtaining the release of a person awaiting trial or appeal, by depositing a bond to guarantee his submission to the judicial authority within the required time. The monetary value of the bail, also called bail, or more precisely surety, is set by the competent court on the prisoner. The collateral may be cash, title deeds, or bonds from wealthy individuals or from a professional guarantor or surety bond company. Failure to surrender the person released on bail within the established deadline will result in the forfeiture of the bail. The legal vocabulary. Defines bail as the guarantee for the appearance of the accused under which he is released pending trial or investigation. Courts have greater discretion in granting or denying bail in the case of people under criminal arrest, for example, it is usually refused when the accused is charged with murder. What is contemplated by bail is to "procure the release of a person from lawful custody by undertaking to appear at the designated time and place and to submit to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court." the above definition makes it clear that money does not necessarily have to be a concomitant element of the bail system. As discussed above, most of the population of rural India lives in poverty and misery and does not even have the money to earn one square meal a day. However, they will still be expected to provide bail even if they have been charged with a bailable offense where the defendant is entitled to bail as a matter of law. As a result, a poor man languishes behind bars, subjected to the atrocities of prison authorities side by side with hardened criminals and effectively treated like a convict. Evolution in England There was a concept of circuit courts during the Middle Ages in Britain. Did the judges go periodically? on the circuit? in various parts of the country to decide cases. The terms Sessions and Quarter Sessions therefore derive from the intervals in which such courts were held. Meanwhile, the undertrials were held in prison awaiting trial. These prisoners were kept in very unhygienic and inhumane conditions, which caused the spread of many diseases. This agitated the undertrials, who were then separated from the defendants. This hasled to their release under the guarantee of a surety, so that it was guaranteed that the person would appear on the date set for the hearing. If he failed to show up, his surety would be held responsible and he would be put on trial. Slowly the concept of monetary bail came to light and the aforementioned trials were asked to provide monetary bail, which could be forfeited in case of failure to appear. In The MagnaCarta, in 1215, the first step was taken towards granting rights to citizens. It said that no man could be taken or imprisoned without being judged by his peers or by the law of the land. Then, in 1275, the Statute of Westminster was promulgated which divided crimes into bailable and non-bailable crimes. It also determined which judges and officials could make bail decisions. In 1677, the Habeas Corpus Act was added to the Right of Petition of 1628, which gave the accused the right to be informed of the charges against him, the right to know whether the charges against him were on bail or not. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 states: "A magistrate shall release prisoners from their confinement by taking their recognizance, with one or more sureties, in any sum at the discretion of the magistrate, unless it appears that the party is engaged for that matter crimes for which according to the law the prisoner is not subject to bail." In 1689, the English Bill of Rights was published, providing safeguards against judges setting bail that was too high. It stated that "excessive bail has been required of persons engaged in criminal cases, to evade the benefit of laws enacted for the liberty of subjects. Excessive bail should not be required." English courts use tick boxes to record reasons and reasons for not granting bail. A standard scheme is used which lists the various reasons for not granting bail. These forms vary in their precise configuration, but in essence they are all the same in that they all set out in one column the reasons for refusing bail and a number of possible reasons for the decision. In America, every accused person has the right to a hearing where the evidence relevant to his or her individual case is considered to determine the amount of bail needed. It is not possible to establish a precise rule determining the amount of bail required in each particular case. Bail must be set based on the circumstances of each case. The issue generally falls within the discretion of the district court. Although the trial court's decision is subject to review by appellate courts for abuse of discretion, appellate courts will not normally interfere if the amount set by the trial court is reasonable and not excessive. The amount of bail should, of course, be sufficient to ensure the defendant's presence in court when required. Bail should be set at an amount that requires vigilance on the part of the sureties to ensure that the accused appears in court when called. Both the federal Constitution and state constitutions contain provisions against excessive bail. Bail set at an amount greater than that reasonably calculated to ensure that the accused will appear at trial and submit to sentencing if convicted is excessive and falls within the prohibition of the Federal Constitution if set by a federal court, or the constitution of a particular state if determined by a state court. But no hard rules have been established to determine what is reasonable bail and what is excessive. That the bail is reasonable which, considering the nature of the crime,the sentence related to it and the probability of the accused's guilt, does not seem more than sufficient to guarantee the presence of the accused. The amount of the bond, in and of itself, is not ultimately determinant of the excess. What would be reasonable bail in the case of one defendant may be excessive in the case of another. As noted below, elements such as the defendant's criminal history, the nature of the crime committed, and therefore the punishment, are material factors in determining whether bail is excessive. When two or more cases are pending against an accused, the fact that the bail in one case, considered in itself, is reasonable, does not prevent the collective amount requested in the different cases from being excessive. The crux of the problem a court faces in setting the bail amount is to set an amount high enough to reasonably ensure the presence of the defendant when required, and at the same time avoid an amount higher than that reasonably calculated to satisfy that purpose. , and therefore excessive. The general rule in federal courts is to try to strike a balance between the need for a bond to jurisdiction and the right to freedom from unnecessary restraint before sentencing, given the circumstances surrounding each defendant. In other words, when determining the amount of bail, the good of the public as well as the rights of the accused should be kept in mind. The Bail Reform Act of 1966 provides for the release of the accused on personal recognizance or upon execution of sentence. an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the judicial officer before whom he appears, unless the officer determines, in the exercise of his discretion, that such release will not reasonably secure the appearance of the defendant as required, in in which case the specified conditions of release may be imposed which will reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. The Bail Reforms Act of 1966 was initiated by President Johnson who believed that, under federal regulations, bail greater than that reasonably calculated to be necessary to ensure the defendant's presence was excessive. It was stated that the factors to be taken into consideration in determining the bail amount are: (1) ability of the accused to pay the bail, (2) nature of the crime, (3) penalty for the crime charged , (4) character and reputation of the defendant, (5) health of the defendant, (6) character and strength of the evidence, (7) likelihood of the defendant appearing at trial, (8) forfeiture of other obligations, and (9 ) if the accused was a fugitive from justice at the time of arrest. The primary factor in determining the amount of bail in a current matter is the character and criminal history of the defendant. It was held, however, that the criminal activities and tendencies of a person applying for bail on a charge of vagrancy do not justify setting bail at an excessive amount for the purpose of keeping him in prison. When determining the amount of bail, voluntary surrender may be considered an indication that the defendant has no intention of fleeing justice. On the other hand, it is also appropriate, when setting a higher bail amount, to take into consideration the fact that at the time of the arrest the accused was a fugitive or the fact that the accused had already fled while he was under accusation. Even when bail is a matter of law, whether a person has previously waived bail is a factor to be considered in determining the bail amount; in this case the bail may be set in an amount that reasonably guarantees the presence of the accused in court, although the bail does not.