最高法院給予桑傑·辛格的保釋凸顯了印度持續存在的保釋問題，不分皂白的逮捕和缺乏問責往往導致長期拘留。儘管有指令規定保釋應該成為常態，但由於基礎不足、缺乏法律援助和法官短缺，監獄已成為預設選項。政府必須透過頒布單獨的保釋法並培養尊重個人自由和在被證明有罪之前無罪推定的心態來解決這個問題。
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.
