Italian naval guards & India: News & Updates

[Rangila]

What is the law for bail according to you? Bail is always permissible for any ACCUSED (note: accused, not convicted) as long as there is no risk of fleeing. "Bail is the norm, jail is the exception" is the supreme court directive for any accused.

Putting someone in jail is a form of PUNISHMENT, which in theory should only be given after somebody is found guilty through a fair trial. And that is precisely what India is doing, giving them a fair trial. If they are found guilty by the court, then they will spend the specified time in jail, and there will be no Christmas visits or journeys for vote. But before such a verdict is reached, they are undertrials, presumed innocent until proven guilty.

And since there is no flight risk (due to the assurances of the GoI), the court has to grant bail. And this is true for anybody who is not a flight risk. Kasab obviously doesn't fall into that category, of not being a flight risk.

Why was Yusuf Memon allowed bail who was sentence to life during Bombay bomb blast?
He could have fled to Pakistan as his brother did.
So he was a flight risk too.
Tiger memon is still in Pakistan.

 

[JanjaWeed]

Why do they have to go back to vote? Don't they have postal voting system? Maybe they don't. However this sounds absurd. Maybe it's only Indian judiciary which is that flexible. Then again.. it's to do with Italy! Nothing surprises me anymore looking at the way Italy has been taking India for a ride for so long.

 

[janon]

Why was Yusuf Memon allowed bail who was sentence to life during Bombay bomb blast?
He could have fled to Pakistan as his brother did.
So he was a flight risk too.
Tiger memon is still in Pakistan.

Well I can't comment on every decision by every court in the history of India. I don't know the specifics. I was commenting on the topic of this thread, about the Italian marines, who are still undertrials, and therefore eligible for bail. Your questions in this post are out of the scope of this thread.

Most people get bail while the trial is on, unless they are deemed a flight risk. And that is exactly how it should be, since society shouldn't punish anybody until they are proved guilty through a trial. It is true in most countries that believe in a free and fair judicial system.

It is not just these Italians, most people in India don't spend the entire duration of their trial in jail. Trials usually last longer than the potential sentences, so this is a good thing for yet another reason. Only people who are deemed a flight risk can be kept in jail throughout the trial.

 

[Rangila]

Well I can't comment on every decision by every court in the history of India. I don't know the specifics. I was commenting on the topic of this thread, about the Italian marines, who are still undertrials, and therefore eligible for bail. Your questions in this post are out of the scope of this thread.

Most people get bail while the trial is on, unless they are deemed a flight risk. And that is exactly how it should be, since society shouldn't punish anybody until they are proved guilty through a trial. It is true in most countries that believe in a free and fair judicial system.



It is not just these Italians, most people in India don't spend the entire duration of their trial in jail. Trials usually last longer

than the potential sentences, so this is a good thing for yet another reason. Only people who are deemed a flight risk can be kept in jail throughout the trial.

You seem to have a tall claim despite the following:

I don't know the specifics

Is the bail granted as per laws laid out (IPC) or it is descretionary in India?

 

[janon]

You seem to have a tall claim despite the following:



Is the bail granted as per laws laid out (IPC) or it is descretionary in India?

No, I didn't make any tall claims. I don't know the specifics of the tiger memon case, and so I didn't say anything about it.

The guideline for bails is clear: Any undertrial shall be granted bail, unless s/he is deemed a flight risk. Of course, that includes an amount of discretion. IPC stands for Indian PENAL code - it is a list of guidelines regarding penalizing, ie, punishing people. What punishment suits what crime and so on. Undertrials are not punished, nobody is punished before they are found guilty and sentenced.

Hence the IPC is not what determines bail. If and when they are found guilty, the IPC will be checked to determine what quantum of punishment is to be awarded.

If anything, it is the CrPC (Criminal procedure code) that has anything to say about what offences are bailable and what are non bailable. But again, that applies to people who have been found guilty, not to people who are still undergoing trial.

 

[Rangila]

No, I didn't make any tall claims. I don't know the specifics of the tiger memon case, and so I didn't say anything about it.

The guideline for bails is clear: Any undertrial shall be granted bail, unless s/he is deemed a flight risk. Of course, that includes an amount of discretion. IPC stands for Indian PENAL code - it is a list of guidelines regarding penalizing, ie, punishing people. What punishment suits what crime and so on. Undertrials are not punished, nobody is punished before they are found guilty and sentenced.

Hence the IPC is not what determines bail. If and when they are found guilty, the IPC will be checked to determine what quantum of punishment is to be awarded.

There are bailable and non bailable offenses first. Which offence is bailable and which one is non-Bailable is decided by the law and not by the presiding judge.
Flight risk comes later.....
Is it possible for a judge to issue a bail in case of non bailable offense?

 

[Contrarian]

I dont mind the fact that they were sent home.

Govt of Italy have taken guarentees of their return. And they have honoured these guarentees before.

All this is acceptable as the case on the Italian marines is also very sketchy. They say they thought the fishermen were pirates. Its one version against the other. I think Judiciary can be lax in this case.

 

[janon]

There are bailable and non bailable offenses first. Which offence is bailable and which one is non-Bailable is decided by the law and not by the presiding judge.
Flight risk comes later.....
Is it possible for a judge to issue a bail in case of non bailable offense?

In a bailable offence, the investigating officer (ie, the police) HAS TO grant bail. In a non bailable offence, that decision is taken by a judge, which is what happened in this case. Non bailable does not mean the person will never get bail, it just means the police cannot grant bail, only the courts can.

Bailable and Non Bailable Offence : Sangli Police, Maharashtra Police, Sangli Police, Police, India, Law, Crime, Citizens, Antisocial, Rules, ISO certified, Police Welfare

Bailable and non bailable offences

 

[Rangila]

In a bailable offence, the investigating officer (ie, the police) HAS TO grant bail. In a non bailable offence, that decision is taken by a judge, which is what happened in this case. Non bailable does not mean the person will never get bail, it just means the police cannot grant bail, only the courts can. Hence the IPC is not what determines bail. [QUOTE/]

Bailable and Non Bailable Offence : Sangli Police, Maharashtra Police, Sangli Police, Police, India, Law, Crime, Citizens, Antisocial, Rules, ISO certified, Police Welfare

Bailable and non bailable offences

And where from those guidelines come. Whether the crime is bailable or not?

And they come from LAW, now which law?
Its IPC.

The offences under any law (mostly the Indian Penal Code) are classified as cognizable and non-cognizable, as bailable or non-bailable and by the lowest courts which can try them.

Got it?
And you said the following:

IPC stands for Indian PENAL code - it is a list of guidelines regarding penalizing, ie, punishing people. What punishment suits what crime and so on. Undertrials are not punished, nobody is punished before they are found guilty and sentenced. Hence the IPC is not what determines bail.

 

[Rangila]

Here is for yr edited addendum that I saw now:

If anything, it is the CrPC (Criminal procedure code) that has anything to say about what offences are bailable and what are non bailable. But again, that applies to people who have been found guilty, not to people who are still undergoing trial

Offences punishable with death and life imprisonment (homicide) come under the column 302 of IPC and not CrPC.

 

[Bang Galore]

There are bailable and non bailable offenses first. Which offence is bailable and which one is non-Bailable is decided by the law and not by the presiding judge.
Flight risk comes later.....
Is it possible for a judge to issue a bail in case of non bailable offense?

All appellate courts in India(high courts & the supreme Courts) have no bars automatically set for granting bail. They have wide discretion in granting bail (under section 498 Cr.P.C.)even in charges considered non-bailable (applicable for the lower courts).

 

[Rangila]

All appellate courts in India(high courts & the supreme Courts) have no bars automatically set for granting bail. They have wide discretion in granting bail (under section 498 Cr.P.C.)even in charges considered non-bailable (applicable for the lower courts).

So you mean its discretionary alone and not in letter and spirit as laid out under the land of law as in IPC?

 

[janon]

So you mean its discretionary alone and not in letter and spirit as laid out under the land of law as in IPC?

Did you read the links I gave?

In a bailable offence, the police HAVE TO give bail, there is no discretion involved. In a non bailable offence, like this one, it is a magistrate or a judge who gives bail, and there is scope for discretion. The discretion involved is whether the accused is a flight risk or not. If not, the norm is to give bail. As the supreme court has said, "Bail is the norm and jail is the exception" for undertrials.

Please read the two links I gave in post number 38, they explain very clearly how it works. You have spent half a page after that asking the same question.

 

[Rangila]

Did you read the links I gave?

In a bailable offence, the police HAVE TO give bail, there is no discretion involved. In a non bailable offence, like this one, it is a magistrate or a judge who gives bail, and there is scope for discretion. The discretion involved is whether the accused is a flight risk or not. If not, the norm is to give bail. As the supreme court has said, "Bail is the norm and jail is the exception" for undertrials.

Please read the two links I gave in post number 38, they explain very clearly how it works. You have spent half a page after that asking the same question.

Dont you for a moment see that I was replying to another poster, and that was not for you?

 

[janon]

Dont you for a moment see that I was replying to another poster, and that was not for you?

So? It is an open forum, and everybody responds to everybody. If you expect a private conversation, use an instant messenger.

The question you raised was not personal in nature either. So I don't see why you expect nobody else to respond.