Interim Bail For Swatantra Bhardwaj From A Delhi Court

Is this bail judgment fair? With all due respect to the court, I think not.

This is not about denying anyone due process. It is about whether the conduct of the accused inspires the kind of trust that should precede the grant of bail.

Here is a person accused of violence who allegedly spoke about the incident openly and proudly, claiming that he had “cracked the skull” of the victim. More disturbingly, he allegedly boasted that he had friends in high places who would ensure that he got out of trouble.

That is not an expression of remorse. It is not an indication of reflection. It is, at the very least, an extraordinary display of contempt for the consequences of the law.

And today, he has been granted three weeks of interim bail.

The court has imposed several conditions, including a prohibition on speaking publicly about the case, contacting the complainant or witnesses, or leaving the country. He is also required to surrender after three weeks, and his conduct during this period will be considered before his plea for regular bail is decided.

The judge observed that “bail is an expression of the court’s trust, and it is not a trophy to be displayed.”

That is a powerful observation.

But it begs the question: where is the evidence of that trust being earned?

If a person publicly boasts about committing violence and then claims that powerful connections will protect him from the law, should that not weigh heavily when deciding whether he deserves the benefit of interim bail?

Courts must decide cases according to law, not public sentiment. But the law must also send a clear message that violence, intimidation and boasts about political connections do not earn anyone special consideration.

If the justice system is to command respect, those who openly claim they can manipulate it should have every reason to discover that they cannot.

That is why, in this case, I find the decision difficult to accept.