Central Bureau Of Investigation V. Dayamoy Mahato 2025 INSC 1418 - Article 21 - Bail - S.436A CrPC - Reverse Burden Of Proof - UAPA Cases

Constitution of India- Article 21 - Bail- While Article 21 rights must always be protected, but however, in cases where the security or integrity of the nation is called into question, that cannot be the sole ground of consideration. The act of the accused persons must be looked at, on the whole, and all relevant factors must be given due consideration while granting or denying bail. Any Court seized of bail application(s) arising out of such offences must record, in their order the reasons and factors that weighed with them in the ultimate outcome. (Para 16)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 436A -[Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 479] - For this section to apply, the accused must necessarily be an undertrial, in judicial custody-Excluded from the application of this section are those offences in which death is one of the possible punishments prescribed-The accused must have spent at least half of the maximum possible punishment for the offence for which he is being tried. When calculating the time spent in prison, any remission or set off granted to the accused, is excluded- The use of the word ‘shall’ indicates a right bestowed upon the accused - an entitlement to be set at liberty and an obligation on part of the State to comply therewith-This right, however is not unbridled, and the court may impose reasonable conditions such as a personal bond or sureties. At the same time, it is also permissible that this right or entitlement may be given a go-by, if the Court concerned after hearing the prosecutor, records reasons, for continued detention beyond the half of the prescribed period-This section also guarantees that in no circumstance can the detention of an undertrial exceed the maximum prescribed sentence for the offence for which he is being tried. (Para 9)

Criminal Trial - Reverse Burden of Proof - A reverse burden of proof essentially means that at the outset of trial, the prosecution is only required to establish certain foundational facts. Once these foundational facts are established, the presumption of guilt kicks in and the accused then is to dispel/rebut the presumption in order to establish innocence, as opposed to the ordinary standards where a prosecution is to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is only to poke sufficient holes therein, to bring in the possibility of him not having committed the act in question. (Para 17) A constitutional democracy does not legitimise burdens by simply declaring them; it must ensure that those burdened are meaningfully equipped to bear them, even those who are accused of the worst offences imaginable. If the State, in spite of all its might presumes guilt, then the same State must also, with the employment of all the resources at its command, create pathways through which the accused can reclaim their innocence. Needless to say, procedural formalities do not suffice. If it is only those, it falls grossly short of the grandeur of a constitutional democracy. It demands a justice system that is alive to human vulnerability, that recognises that liberty is not a privilege for the powerful but a right inherent in every individual. (Para 18) - The justice system must ensure that even under a reverse burden regime, the accused is not abandoned to the weight of presumptive guilt but supported in the pursuit of truth and justice.(Para 19) Directions issued. (Para 24)