In re Kenneth Humphrey
Any lawyer practicing in court in India could attest to the fact that various people accused of various crimes, even after getting a favorable bail order are not able to exercise their liberty, the same may be originating from various reasons but mostly from the poor financial condition the accused suffers. It is further to be noted that intersectionality of various other factors along with financial unwell being might again be one of the most prominent reasons why the person ended up in Jail in the first place. Various reforms have taken place in India’s justice delivery system, to tackle the arrest at first instance as well, but the problem is very prominent. California’s Supreme Court recently took cognizance of the same, and observed that indigent people cannot be allowed to languish in jail just because they are not able to post bail, and equated such practice “pretrial detention order”.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v Special Judicial Magistrate
In this landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that the power to issue a summon is a matter of grave importance, and such power ought to be exercised cautiously only after the Magistrate is satisfied that the real case is being made.
T T Antony v State of Kerala
Although in this particular landmark judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that multiple complaints/ FIRs in respect of the same act might go on violating the Fundamental Rights of the accused, as the same may subject to unnecessary harassment. But at the same time, a grave concern remains, what if in a situation accused himself takes first opportunity to register a false complaint, and thereby depriving the victim to exercise his/ her rights, and in consequence thereof fail the justice system itself.
Ghostline Legal