Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011
"This Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, also involving an economic
offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue
of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must
be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure
that an accused person would stand his trial when called
upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the
principle that punishment begins after conviction and that
every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and
found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is
neither punitive nor preventive. This Court sounded a caveat
that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial
punitive content and it would be improper for any court to
refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an
accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an
unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the
jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in
appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to
be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable
right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society
in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the
charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while
examining the application of bail but it was not only the test
or the factor and that grant or denial of such privilege, is
regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of
each particular case. That detention in custody of under-trial
prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation
of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted."