Fair enough: that does not depend on whether the accused is a 'state asset' or a 'state liability'. Observations taint the appearance of fairness in judgments by bringing in external irrelevant aspects of the character of an accused into the picture.
Unless there is any reason to believe that the accused if not kept behind bars can compromise the investigation or pose a continuing threat to the alleged victim or their family, then granting bail is the supposed norm. Especially after the chargesheet has been filed. Not that the norm is always followed.
‘Accused a state asset, is talented’: Gauhati high court bail for a student in IIT rape case.
This has recently led to social-media outrage and people have been using words like "cognizable offence", "prima facie" without even properly knowing these terms and undermining the decision of the judge. In a cognizable offence, it is at the discretion of the judge/magistrate to decide whether to grant bail or not, but the woke social media crowd is already complaining without even doing their due diligence.
So, I wanted to ask the fellow LI users regarding their opinion on this case and whether the bail was justified after being established that it was a prime-facie case? And on what grounds a bail can be conferred to the accused in a prima-facie case?
This has recently led to social-media outrage and people have been using words like "cognizable offence", "prima facie" without even properly knowing these terms and undermining the decision of the judge. In a cognizable offence, it is at the discretion of the judge/magistrate to decide whether to grant bail or not, but the woke social media crowd is already complaining without even doing their due diligence.
So, I wanted to ask the fellow LI users regarding their opinion on this case and whether the bail was justified after being established that it was a prime-facie case? And on what grounds a bail can be conferred to the accused in a prima-facie case?