Supreme Court rules that transfer of long-term industrial lease rights is exempt from VAT

The Supreme Court of India stated that a High Court's decision to grant bail to an accused must be considered final, and the Court should not entertain appeals from the state against such a ruling. This was articulated as part of an important clarification on the principles of criminal justice operation, while maintaining the priority of individual liberty.

Supreme Court's Stance

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vin Mohan, made this declaration while hearing the appeal by the Chhattisgarh government against the granting of bail to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel. Despite serious doubts regarding the High Court's decision, the Court emphasized the need to return the judicial system to the trends of the 1980s, when the then Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati asserted that High Court bail decisions should be final.

Comments on Decision Procedure

Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that High Courts have become overly conservative in matters of granting bail, often drafting documents of 40–50 pages when deciding whether to grant or deny it. He also pointed out that such extensive discussions can negatively affect a fair and impartial trial. In his view, bail orders should not exceed three or four pages.

Justice Bagchi suggested that appeals to the Supreme Court regarding bail cases should only be filed when bail has been rejected. He stressed that cases involving personal liberty hold a completely different status in the Supreme Court as an organ ensuring fundamental rights. The revocation of bail results in a reduction of freedom, which must be weighed against the rights of the victim and the interests of society.

Reasons for Increase in Appeals

The bench observed that the tendency of states to challenge High Court bail decisions over the last two decades is the main reason for the increase in appeals to the Supreme Court. The Court reported that every bench examines at least ten such petitions daily, which causes concern for the court. The bench warned that excessive reliance by the prosecutor and investigator on temporary support measures diminishes the ultimate efforts to secure a conviction. The attempt to revoke bail allows the state to evade greater responsibility for ensuring a fair and lawful process desired by crime victims.

State Accountability

The Court added that in most cases, there is no honorable justification, as the accused is not convicted due to mistakes by the investigator or the prosecution's inability to properly present evidence. It is in such situations that the state must ensure accountability, rather than seeking to overturn bail. The judges also expressed concern about the length of orders, noting that in UAPA cases, High Courts issue 50-page decisions, and in PMLA cases, 40 pages.

When Kapil Sibal tried to argue in favor of retaining Baghel's bail, the bench stated that they did not wish to discuss the facts of the case, as there are very serious reservations regarding this matter. It was mentioned that even in cases of detention under MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act, which was in force during the emergency), High Courts had previously released detainees by issuing one-page orders.

Previous Guidelines

Justice Bagchi recalled that a judgment written by Chief Justice Kant in the K. A. Najib case in 2021 established guidelines for granting bail and dispelled doubts among High Court judges who were struggling to balance freedom and continued detention. In the same ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that courts could grant bail to the accused based on prolonged custody even in UAPA cases. Attorney General's advisor Tushar Mehta argued that the Baghel case was exceptional because it involved a large number of WhatsApp messages exchanged between two constitutional functionaries—the judge and the Chief Advocate of Chhattisgarh.