Justice, as we know, was a fundamental right for all, but its error is evident as money is now its downfall. Analyzed objectively, the criminal jurisprudence adopted by India is a mere reflection of the Victorian legacy left by the British. Over time, a few amendments were made from time to time to satisfy pressure groups and vote banks. It has probably not been asked whether these laws, which have existed for almost seven decades, have taken into account the fate and socio-economic conditions of 70% of the population of this country who live in total poverty. India, being a poverty-stricken developing country, needed everything but a mindless copy of the laws in force in developed Western countries. The concept of release on bail, which is an integral part of criminal jurisprudence, also suffers from the disadvantages mentioned above. Bail is widely used to refer to the release of a person accused of an offense on condition that he provides security that will guarantee his presence before the court or other authority whenever necessary. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original EssayBail, in law, means securing the release from jail of a person awaiting trial or appeal , by posting a guarantee to guarantee its submission. at the required time to the judicial authority. The monetary value of the security, also called bail or, more precisely, surety, is set by the court having jurisdiction over the prisoner. The collateral may be cash, title deeds, or bonds from private individuals with financial means or from a professional surety or surety company. Failure of the person released on bail to surrender at the agreed time will result in forfeiture of the security. The lexicon of law. Defines bail as the security of the appearance of the accused upon which he is released pending trial or investigation. Courts have greater discretion to grant or deny bail to persons under criminal arrest; for example, this release is generally denied when the accused is charged with homicide. What is meant by bail is "to obtain the release of a person from lawful custody, agreeing that he will appear at the appointed time and place and submit to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court.” the above definition makes it clear that money is not necessarily a concomitant of the bail system. As we have already discussed above, the majority of India's rural population lives in the grip of poverty and destitution, and does not even have the money to earn a meal a day. Yet, they are still supposed to serve as surety even if they have been charged with a bailable offense for which the accused is entitled to bail as of right. As a result, a poor man languishes behind bars, subjected to the atrocities of the prison authorities, rubbing shoulders with hardened criminals and being effectively treated like a convict. Developments in England There was a concept of circuit courts in medieval Britain. Did the judges go there periodically? on the track? in various parts of the country to decide cases. The terms sessions and quarter sessions therefore derive from the intervals at which these courts were held. Meanwhile, the defendants were held in prison awaiting trial. These prisoners were held invery unsanitary and inhumane conditions, which caused the spread of many diseases. This agitated the defendants, who were therefore separated from the accused. This led to their release on bail, so that it was assured that the person would appear on the date fixed for the hearing. If he failed to appear, his surety was held responsible and had to stand trial. Gradually, the concept of monetary bail emerged and defendants were asked to give monetary bail, which was subject to forfeiture in case of failure to appear. Carta, in 1215, was the first step towards the granting rights to citizens. He said that no man could be arrested or imprisoned without being tried by his peers or by the law of the land. Then, in 1275, the Statute of Westminster was enacted, which divided crimes into bail and non-bail. It also determined which judges and officials could make decisions under bail. In 1677, the Habeas Corpus Act was added to the Right of Petition of 1628, which gave the accused the right to be informed of the charges against him, the right to know whether the charges against him were bailable or not. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 states: "A magistrate shall release prisoners from their imprisonment by giving their undertaking, with one or more sureties, for any sum in the discretion of the magistrate, unless it appears that the party is hired for this matter. offenses for which, by law, the prisoner is not liable to be released on bail." In 1689, the English Bill of Rights was adopted, which provided safeguards against judges who set bail too high. It declared that "excessive bail has been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to escape the benefit of the laws passed for the liberty of the subjects. Excessive bail should not be required." The English courts use tick boxes to record reasons and reasons why bail has not been granted. There is a standard template which lists the various reasons for which bail is not granted These forms vary in their precise configuration, but in substance they are all the same in that they set out all the reasons for refusing bail in one column and a number of points. possible reasons for the conclusion. In the United States, each defendant is entitled to a hearing at which evidence relevant to his or her individual case is considered to determine the amount of bail required. No precise rules can be established. to determine the amount of bail required in a particular case Bail must be set based on the circumstances of each case. This matter is generally within the discretion of the trial court. Although the trial court's decision is subject to review by appellate courts for abuse of discretion, appeals courts generally will not intervene if the amount set by the trial court is reasonable and not excessive. The amount of bail should, of course, be sufficient to ensure the defendant's attendance in court when required. Bail must be set at an amount that will require vigilance on the part of the sureties to ensure that the defendant appears in court when called. The federal and state constitutions contain provisions against excessive bail. Bail set at an amount greater than that reasonably calculated to ensure that the accused will appear for trial and submit to punishment if convicted is excessive and falls within the prohibition of bail.Federal constitution if set by a federal court, or the constitution of the state concerned. if set by a state court. But no hard and fast rules have been established to determine what is reasonable bail and what is excessive bail. That the bond is reasonable and, considering the nature of the offense, the penalty attached to the offense, and the defendant's likelihood of guilt, does not appear to be more than sufficient to secure the defendant's appearance. The amount of the deposit, in and of itself, is not ultimately determinative of the excess. What would be reasonable bail for one defendant may be excessive for another. As discussed below, factors such as the defendant's criminal record, the nature of the crime committed, and the resulting sentence are important factors in determining whether bail is excessive. When two or more cases are pending against a defendant, the fact that the bail in one case, considered by itself, is reasonable, does not prevent the collective amount required in the several cases from being excessive. The essence of the problem facing a court in setting the amount of bail is to set the amount high enough to reasonably secure the presence of the defendant when required, and at the same time to avoid an amount greater than that reasonably calculated to achieve this objective, and therefore excessive. The general rule in federal courts is to try to balance the need for jurisdictional nexus with the right to be free from unnecessary pre-sentencing restrictions, depending on the circumstances surrounding each particular defendant. In other words, while determining the amount of bail, the public good as well as the rights of the accused must be kept in mind. The Bail Reform Act of 1966 provides for the release of the accused on his own recognizance or after the completion of a sentence. an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the court officer before whom he appears, unless the court officer determines, in the exercise of his discretion, that such release will not secure the defendant's appearance as required, in which case specified conditions of release that will reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance at trial may be imposed. The Bail Reforms Act, 1966 was initiated by President Johnson who believed that under federal rules, bail in an amount greater than that reasonably calculated to be necessary to secure the presence of the accused was excessive. It was stated that the following factors are considered in determining the amount of bail: (1) the ability of the accused to post bail, (2) the nature of the offense, (3) the penalty for the offense charged, (4) the character and reputation of the accused, (5) state of health of the accused, (6) quality and strength of the evidence, (7) probability of appearance of the accused at trial,(8) forfeiture of other bail bonds, and(9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice at the time of his or her arrest.A The major factor in determining the amount of bail in a case at issue is the defendant's character and criminal history. It has been held, however, that the criminal activities and tendencies of a person seeking bail for vagrancy do not justify setting bail at an excessive amount for the purpose of keeping him in jail. When determining the amount of bail, voluntary surrender may be considered an indication that the defendant does not intend to abscond. On the other hand, it is also appropriate, by setting a higher deposit amount.