All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   The Supreme Court has restated the basic pri... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.
In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.
Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.
Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.
It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.
Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.
He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?
  • a)
    Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.
  • b)
    Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.
  • c)
    Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.
  • d)
    Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail ...
Correct Answer is (b) Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.
Hence, his jail is justified and lawful.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above. Consequently other options are not valid. 'X' is a victim and his arrest is out of question.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?

The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements can be considered in support of the bail?(1) Stringent application of law.(2) Giving bail to the accused who are unlikely to abscond.(3) Person not showing propensity in fleeing from justice.(4) Individuals tampering with evidence.(5) Jail to offender who can influence the witnesses.(6) Make Bail a rule and Jail an exception.(7) Making Jail a rule and Bail an exception.Choose the appropriate statements from the following

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.According to the passage, which of the following is NOT a key difference between ED authorities and the police in their approach to investigations?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?a)Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.b)Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.c)Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.d)Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?a)Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.b)Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.c)Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.d)Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?a)Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.b)Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.c)Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.d)Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?a)Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.b)Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.c)Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.d)Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?a)Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.b)Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.c)Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.d)Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?a)Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.b)Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.c)Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.d)Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?a)Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.b)Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.c)Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.d)Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?a)Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.b)Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.c)Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.d)Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?a)Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.b)Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.c)Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.d)Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Supreme Court has restated the basic principles of granting bail while ordering the conditional release of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media 'money-laundering' case. That these principles required fresh iteration indicates a problem in the way courts have been handling certain applications for bail in recent times.In a case largely turning on documentary evidence - and one being probed by two agencies concerning the same transactions - it was quite astonishing that the former Minister was incarcerated for over 100 days, even after being subjected to prolonged custodial interrogation. As rightly pointed out by the three-judge Bench, bail remains the norm and its refusal the exception. The denial of bail is directly related to the possibility that a remand prisoner who has been released may not appear before the court to face trial. As securing the presence of a suspect is the primary ground for keeping a person in judicial custody prior to trial, there is no reason to jail someone who is unlikely to abscond.Another valid reason is the potential for a person to tamper with evidence or influence and threaten witnesses.Therefore, courts considering bail are required to conduct a triple test to find out if a person is likely to hinder the trial by fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The apex court has conceded that sometimes the gravity of the offence may be an additional consideration, but underscored that it cannot be used to deny bail based on allegations yet to be tested in a trial.It is a matter of concern that larger issues of due process have to be revisited each time a public figure is arrested in the course of investigation, giving rise to a perception of political vendetta. Investigative agencies would be better advised to focus on gathering relevant material and moving for an early trial. The legal system is already in place for expedited trial against political leaders through special courts. There is no necessity to vitiate the process through dramatic arrests and prolonged pre-trial imprisonment.Q. Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act bail is completely barred. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community.He is arrested under the SC/ST Atrocity Act. Whether Mohan should be granted bail or be jailed?a)Mohan should be granted bail as the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.b)Mohan should not be granted bail because under the Act there is an express bar against the bail.c)Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested because they have committed crime against each other.d)Only 'X' when arrested should be granted bail.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup