‘Bail is rule, jail an exception’ does not apply in terror cases: Supreme Court

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 in Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. A view of the Supreme Court of India building, 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. “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. The ‘justifications’ must be searched from the case diary and the final report submitted before the special court.” Discussing the “twin-prong test” while dealing with a bail plea of a man charged under UAPA, the bench noted that the question of ascertaining whether the accused is a flight risk or not; or whether he can influence witnesses and tamper with evidence will not even come up if he fails the first test and the court has prima facie satisfaction of his guilt.