대법원이 Sanjay Singh에게 보석금을 부여한 것은 무차별적인 체포와 책임 부족으로 인해 구금 기간이 길어지는 인도의 지속적인 보석 문제를 강조합니다. 보석이 원칙이어야 한다는 지시에도 불구하고 기초가 부족하고 법적 지원이 부족하며 판사가 부족해 감옥이 기본이 됐다. 정부는 별도의 보석법을 제정하고, 유죄가 입증될 때까지 개인의 자유와 무죄 추정을 존중하는 사고방식을 키워 이 문제를 해결해야 한다.
Supreme Court's recent decision to grant bail to AAP MP Sanjay Singh has once again highlighted India's lingering bail problem. Singh was jailed for six months after the Delhi High Court refused him bail last year, stating prima facie that Singh was part of the policy planning team of the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy, which has allegedly resulted in revenue loss for the state government. Not much headway was made since his October 2023 arrest regarding his guilt or innocence.
The apex court has consistently highlighted that bail should be the rule, jail an exception. Using arrest as a punitive measure leads to one of the most severe consequences in criminal law - loss of personal liberty. Bail is a lifeline for undertrial prisoners, providing temporary reprieve from incarceration. It also helps decongest India's prisons and reduce strain on the judicial system.
The court has always underlined the need to go by the doctrine of three tests on bail: an accused should be granted bail if they do not present a flight risk, are unlikely to tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.
Despite these directives, jail has become a default practice in India because of indiscriminate arrests, lack of repercussions on police for inadequate groundwork, absence of free legal aid (especially for those at the bottom of the pyramid), and a paucity of judges to tackle cases.
To fix this broken and arbitrary system, GoI must, as the top court had asked in 2022, move on a separate bail Act to streamline the process of granting bail to ensure that bail in India is not just for those making headlines like Singh, but for all citizens.
Above all, there must be a change of mindset that upholds the principles of personal freedom and accepts that one is innocent until proven guilty.
