'Bail is rule, jail an exception does not apply in terror cases'

Bail in terror cases must be rejected as a "rule" when courts have reasonable grounds to believe that the charges are prima facie true, the Supreme Court held on Thursday in a judgment that prescribes a "twin prong" test, severely narrowing the scope of bail under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

- Utkarsh Anand

According to a bench of justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence that the discretion of courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - "bail is the rule, jail is the exception"- does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAPA. In such instances, the bench noted, courts are merely examining if there is justification to reject bail.

It further underscored that the test for rejection of bail is quite plain under UAPA. "Bail must be rejected as a 'rule', if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true," it said.

It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied, the bench held, that courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the 'tripod test' or 'triple test' whether the accused is a flight risk, can influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.