Trial court judges play it safe by not granting bail in key issues, says CJI Chandrachud

CJI DY Chandrachud spoke during an event organised by the National Law School of India University in Bengaluru on Sunday

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said trial court judges prefer to play safe by not granting bail on important criminal issues. He stressed on the need for a “sense of robust common sense” to critically assess each case’s specifics and avoid simply labelling crimes as serious.

He urged trial judges to fulfil their duties without fear of distrust, ensuring fair and timely justice. “People who should be getting bail in the trial courts are not getting it there, as a result of which, they have to invariably move high courts. People who should be getting bail in the high courts will not necessarily get it, as a result of which they have to move to SC. This delay compounds the problem of those who are facing arbitrary arrests,” he said.

The CJI was speaking at the 11th annual conference of Berkeley Centre for Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law, hosted by National Law School of India University (NLSIU) at Bangalore International Centre.

According to him, there are many small cases before the Supreme Court and the number of bail applications judges clear outnumbers other matters. “We prioritise bail even during the vacations, for the simple reason that these people, at least, must have their day in court,” he said.

He reinstated the need of trusting lower-level courts within the hierarchical legal system. “We have to encourage trial courts to be more receptive to the need for accommodating concerns of people who are seeking liberty,” he said. “Unfortunately, the problem today is that we look at any grant of relief by trial judges with a degree of suspicion. That means the trial judges are increasingly playing it safe, not granting bail on important issues of serious crimes.”

The CJI used a narcotics case as an example to illustrate  how understanding the role of the accused  is crucial for fair judgment.
“When you have an accused in a narcotics case, you look at the finer points of the case: What was he doing? Was he a cleaner in the truck? Was he a driver in the truck? Was he the owner of the truck? Was he the person who was really the main person behind the trade which is taking place? Unless we, therefore, separate grain from the chaff in criminal jurisprudence, it’s very unlikely that we’ll have just solutions,” he said.
His comments came in response to a participant’s question about living in a society where authorities act first and seek forgiveness later.