3 min readMar 26, 2026 06:12 AM IST
First published on: Mar 26, 2026 at 06:12 AM IST
The Indian Express report (‘SC rap to Allahabad HC judge over bail in dowry death’, IE, March 17) and editorial (‘When justice becomes mechanical’, IE, March 18) apropos of the bail orders passed by Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court lack journalistic rigour. The report claimed that the judge did not respond to repeated attempts by the publication to reach out to him. The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, as adopted by Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court of India in 1997, or Restatement (9), clearly states that a judge shall not give interviews to the media and let judgments speak for themselves.
Notwithstanding this, the ecosystem within which the judge concerned operates must be appreciated to better understand the broader issue. As of February 1, a total of 12,23,849 cases are pending before the Allahabad HC. The sanctioned strength of the Court is 160; as on March 13, it has a vacancy of 51 judges. The enormity of the challenge before a judge in this court should not be overlooked. A judge does not only hear bail matters — they are in addition to a determination/roster assigned by the Chief Justice of the High Court. A mechanical observation that points out the judge has granted bail in 508 out of 510 cases is thus reductive.
Notwithstanding that the judge may have granted bail in 508 of 510 cases involving dowry death, two settled principles remain sacrosanct: First, bail is the norm, and jail the exception. Second, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” — Section 80 of the BNS does not invite a reversal of this presumption. The prosecution has to prove the offence has been committed beyond reasonable doubt. This is in contrast to Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which creates a reverse presumption regarding the accused’s culpability, and the accused has to prove he is not guilty. Thus, the assertion that Section 80 of the BNS creates a statutory presumption against the accused, treating the crime as heinous, has no legal basis. The judge has been even-handed and consistent. In the two cases where he did not grant bail, there was sufficient material available on the record for not doing so.
A bail application seeks to uphold a person’s liberty — a fundamental right under Article 21. Whilst liberty may be curtailed via a procedure established by law, one must not lose sight of the fact that the SC has deprecated the systemic faultlines that force litigants to approach the highest constitutional court for bail.
At a time when the SC, in a suo-motu writ petition, is coordinating with states, police and high courts on how criminal trials can be expedited — a crucial facet of which includes grant of bail — the use of standardised formats in bail applications is not erroneous; non-consideration of relevant facts or consideration of irrelevant facts in the grant or non-grant of bail is the real danger. One hopes that Justice Bhatia, who has asked for a permanent break from hearing bail pleas, will reconsider his decision.
The writer is an advocate on record practising before the Supreme Court
