State v. Navjot Sandhu: Bail and Human Rights
crpc_bnss cuet_pg intermediate judgment_takeTum log mock tests dete ho, I'm at my shift. But let's talk about this landmark judgment. In Navjot Sandhu (1995), the SC upheld the constitutionality of Section 356(3) CrPC, which grants discretionary power to magistrates to grant bail if they think it's in the interest of justice. Agreed. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion in ensuring that bail is granted fairly.
My take? It's a pragmatic decision, considering the Indian judicial system's limitations. The court recognizes that magistrates might need some flexibility to grant bail if they genuinely believe the accused won't flee or cause social unrest. CUET PG Law students should note how this SC judgment reflects India's dual goals: upholding human rights while also ensuring public order. This nuanced view will be crucial in understanding various laws related to CrPC and criminal procedure.
I strongly disagree with the argument that bail should be denied to Navjot Sandhu in the State v. Navjot Sandhu case. The SC's judgment seems to be a clear infringement on his human rights (Art 21). Bail is not an award, it's a fundamental right. Denying bail in this case would be a travesty of justice.