Supreme Court Questions Double Standards in Bail Cases

The Supreme Court criticized a West Bengal state government practice of applying different standards in bail cases while granting bail to a man imprisoned for over a year. The court emphasized the inconsistency as four co-accused were given anticipatory bail but the state opposed the petitioner's bail request.

In a critical ruling, the Supreme Court has granted bail to a man in a West Bengal case, while warning against the state's inconsistent approach in granting bail. The court questioned the state government's inconsistent yardsticks in applying bail rules to different accused persons.

The apex court noted that while the state chose not to challenge anticipatory bail granted to four co-accused, it opposed bail for a petitioner jailed for over a year. This discrepancy, the court implied, could suggest unfair treatment or bias in the state's legal processes.

Highlighting the serious nature of the involved NDPS Act offenses, the court had earlier asked the state to reconsider its approach. However, observing potential collusion, the Supreme Court ultimately allowed the man's bail, urging fair application of justice.

(With inputs from agencies.)