Bail refers to the time a person charged with an offence can be set at liberty without staying in prison as they await their hearing in court. This decision of whether or not to grant bail is not always uniform among judges because every case is unique, and it may be that the view of one judge regarding different aspects of the law, evidence, or conditions for bail might be different from other judges.

It is the responsibility of the judge to take into consideration several factors prior to a decision regarding bail. These may include how the law has been interpreted, the evidence presented in the case, and which conditions should be imposed if bail is granted. However, in matters under consideration or examination, judges are empowered to decide based on their own assessments and personal perspectives concerning the subject.

Take, for instance, one judge may perceive the evidence against the accused as being forceful and opts not to grant bail. Another judge can, however, look at the evidence differently and decide to grant bail since it is not strong enough to prove that the person is guilty.

When judges are considering giving someone bail, they take into account the evidence against him or her. Their consideration is on how strong that evidence is, how serious the crime is, and whether there is a likelihood that he or she will interfere with the case or tamper with evidence.

Furthermore, judges can vary their evaluations of the evidentiary value in cases. To illustrate this, a judge could view the evidence as robust and sufficient for pre-trial incarceration while another judge might have a different opinion.

It is important to mention that the judges have the power to set different rules for bail. There are rules that they may tighten in an attempt to ensure the person’s cooperation with the law and that the release does not result in problems or other inconveniences.

In addition, sometimes the judges may also impose conditions on the bail set, such as giving up their passport, checking in with the police station, staying away from certain people or area, or paying fines. However, such conditions might be viewed differently by different judges in the case at hand.

Moreover, judges can apply their own discretion while deciding upon the bail. Although certain principles of law can be followed, these may also include personal factors like circumstances in which an accused person is, criminal background, and connections with society. In other words, two apparently similar cases may result in divergent decisions by different judges.

Some regions have an ongoing controversy as to whether bail decisions are influenced by political pressure and whether the judges remain objective. Judges could be tense when their bail decisions may displease influential persons, such as politicians or government departments. This tension may affect their work and even their family members.

Another thing that might concern judges is if they give decisions that bother the rich and powerful, they may think of vengeful retribution by damaging their image, family and career. The second thing they would worry about is that there might be a negative reaction from politicians or the media when some people are released on bail. On the other hand, refusing or agreeing to grant bail to politically important individuals might have consequences for judges’ careers and public opinion. As such, political pressure might often compromise judges’ ability to render fair decisions in cases where bails are sought.

The fear of possible retributions from the people in power in the form of their or their family members’ harassment through different government agencies upon retirement or even before retirement keeps worrying judges while deciding on bail. They feel that there can be dire consequences in the future affecting their career advancement, livelihoods, reputations, and freedom. This fear could make judges act more cautiously and less justifiably regarding granting or refusing bail in some instances.

There is also the issue of judges’ concern for their family’s safety, which extends to while they are on duty as well as after they have retired. If they dread their families being exposed to danger, it is more than probable that they might hesitate or even refuse to make a decision. These feelings of protectiveness can cloud judges’ thinking and shape the way they make decisions about bail.

Some bail decisions can be affected by political elements. Judges are under pressure to think about how their decision will impact their job security, career advancement, post-retirement life, and the welfare of their families. But when politics steer bail decisions, it raises questions about the idea of independence and fairness in judges. It’s not an easy task for judges to deliver justice while respecting the law, particularly in today's complicated world. The fact that people would lose trust in the legal system and feel hopeless without any attempt at keeping it fair is worth mentioning again and again.

In a court of law, although bail has the same definition as release from prison in this particular sense, judges are likely to adopt different standpoints when it comes to making such decisions. It could be the case that judges have their own interpretations of the law, perceive evidence differently, or formulate other criteria regarding bail. In addition, they can make a decision based on what they think is fair.

While there are some standards set by law for bail decisions, usually it all depends on a judge’s judgment. Their legal acumen, individual belief system, moral values, personal integrity, ideological and political leanings, extraneous pressure, experiences, and the case understanding are the major determinants in their bail decisions. It is hence due to these reasons that you may witness different bail decisions even though the cases could appear to be of a similar nature.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565