Bail jurisprudence in India serves as a critical safeguard against the undue deprivation of personal liberty for accused persons. While the general principles of bail under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are well-established, special legislations such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 impose stricter conditions, often limiting judicial discretion. This research examines the differential application of bail provisions in Delhi courts, focusing on how courts navigate between individual liberty and public interest in cases involving ordinary criminal offences under the IPC versus special laws. By conducting a comparative analysis of judicial orders, case law, and empirical data from the High Court and district courts of Delhi, the study identifies patterns in bail grant and denial, the rationale for restrictive conditions, and the implications for undertrial prisoners. The study also evaluates whether the stringent provisions under NDPS and UAPA align with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21, and examines the role of judicial interpretation in balancing human rights with national security and law enforcement objectives. The findings reveal inconsistencies in judicial approaches, highlighting the need for uniform guidelines to ensure equitable treatment of accused persons across different legal frameworks. This research contributes to the discourse on criminal justice reforms by providing policy recommendations for harmonizing bail jurisprudence under special and general laws, thereby promoting both legal certainty and protection of individual rights.
- et al. (Tue,) studied this question.