“Bail, not jail” has long been a cherished judicial principle, underscoring the presumption of innocence and the importance of personal liberty. Over time, however, courts have carved out exceptions for heinous crimes — murder, rape, gang rape, etc. — where the likelihood of witness intimidation or further harm justifies denial of bail.
Wednesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court signals a necessary evolution in this doctrine: serious economic offences, particularly by habitual offenders, warrant the same rigorous scrutiny as violent crimes.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran set aside a bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court to an accused in a large-scale financial fraud.
The High Court had leaned heavily on parity with the co-accused, overlooking the individual’s prior record and repeated involvement in similar cases.
The apex court’s intervention underscores a vital point: economic crimes are not victimless abstractions; they devastate lives, erode trust, and corrode the moral foundations of society.
Fraud that shattered livelihoods
The case itself is telling. A complainant supplied items worth Rs 11.52 crore but received only Rs 5.02 crore, with the balance siphoned off through forgery, criminal breach of trust, and intimidation.
Such fraud does more than empty bank accounts — it shatters livelihoods, disrupts supply chains, and undermines confidence in commerce. For small traders and farmers, losses of this magnitude can mean generational ruin.
The court’s reasoning draws on precedents which caution against granting bail when there is a risk to witnesses or public order. While those cases involved violent offences, the Bench rightly observed that the value of life and liberty extends beyond physical safety to include economic well-being. When conmen make a profession of exploiting trust, their actions can be as destructive as physical violence.
Economic crimes as assaults on society
India’s experience offers sobering examples. When contractors use substandard materials after paying hefty bribes, bridges collapse and innocent lives are lost. When public officials or even judges amass unexplained wealth, public faith in institutions erodes.
When fraudsters “virtually arrest” victims through digital scams, extorting life savings, the psychological trauma can be lifelong. These are not lesser crimes; they are assaults on the social contract.
Yet, public perception often treats economic offences as less heinous than violent crime. This moral hierarchy is misplaced. A murder extinguishes a life; a massive financial fraud can destroy many lives over decades.
A principled shift in bail jurisprudence
Justice demands that habitual economic offenders — those who repeatedly prey on the gullible — face stringent bail standards to prevent further harm and safeguard witnesses. Liberty is precious, but it cannot become a shield for serial fraudsters.
By affirming that economic well-being is integral to the right to life, the Supreme Court has taken a principled step towards aligning bail jurisprudence with contemporary realities. The message is clear: those who plunder society’s wealth with calculated deceit will not find easy refuge in the doctrine of “bail, not jail”.
