The approach of different courts, namely the Supreme Court, High Court, and lower courts, in handling bail applications and evidence in the Bhima Koregaon case can be compared and contrasted as follows:
1. Bail Application Disparities:
- Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in India, and its approach to bail applications tends to be more cautious and meticulous. It considers the broader principles of justice and individual rights. In high-profile cases like the Bhima Koregaon violence case, the Supreme Court often conducts a detailed analysis of the evidence, the strength of the prosecution's case, and the gravity of the charges before granting bail.
- High Court: High Courts are appellate courts that review decisions made by lower courts. They have more discretion in dealing with bail applications but are generally expected to follow the precedents set by the Supreme Court. In the Bhima Koregaon case, High Courts have granted bail based on factors like the sufficiency of evidence, medical grounds, and failure to file charge sheets within stipulated time frames.
- Lower Courts: Lower courts, such as the trial courts, are the first points of contact for bail applications. Their approach to bail tends to be more stringent, especially in cases involving serious charges like terrorism or conspiracy. The burden of proof for obtaining bail is higher, and they may be reluctant to grant bail to the accused until a strong case is presented by the defense.
2. Evaluation of Evidence:
- Supreme Court: The Supreme Court takes a comprehensive view of the evidence, focusing on the broad probabilities and the strength of the prosecution's case. In the Bhima Koregaon case, the Supreme Court has critically assessed the quality and probative value of evidence presented by the prosecution.
- High Court: High Courts also evaluate evidence, but their scrutiny may not be as extensive as that of the Supreme Court. They may focus more on procedural aspects and the compliance of the investigating agencies with the law.
- Lower Courts: Lower courts, during bail hearings, may not conduct an in-depth analysis of evidence, as the main purpose is to determine if there are prima facie grounds for granting bail. They often rely on the case diaries and reports submitted by the investigating agencies.
3. Implications on Accused's Rights and Access to Justice:
- Supreme Court: The Supreme Court's cautious approach to bail applications in high-profile cases can sometimes result in lengthy detention of the accused. While this ensures a thorough examination of the case, it can also lead to prolonged incarceration, potentially affecting the accused's fundamental rights and access to justice.
- High Court: High Courts, by having more discretion, can be more lenient in granting bail, which may provide relief to the accused earlier in the legal process. This may facilitate better access to justice for the accused, especially in cases where there are mitigating circumstances or weak evidence.
- Lower Courts: Lower courts' stringent approach to bail can be detrimental to the accused's rights and access to justice, as they may not consider all aspects of the case at the initial stages. This can lead to prolonged detention without sufficient grounds, impeding the accused's ability to defend themselves effectively.
In conclusion, the approach of different courts in handling bail applications and evidence in the Bhima Koregaon case varies based on their jurisdiction and authority. The Supreme Court takes a cautious and comprehensive view, High Courts have more discretion, while lower courts tend to be stringent. These disparities can impact the accused's rights and access to justice, leading to prolonged detention or early relief based on the court's evaluation of the evidence and the strength of the prosecution's case.
