Violence in Punganur: High Court hears Midhun Reddy’s plea to quash FIRs

The fate of accused individuals in India often hinges on the decision of bail granted by judges. While the Supreme Court maintains that bail should be the default, judges retain considerable discretion in individual cases. A recent study examining 4,459 bail applications before the Delhi High Court between 2023 and 2024 reveals a notable disparity in bail decisions based on the judges' professional background.

Judges promoted from the district judiciary were found to grant bail at a significantly lower rate (54.8%) compared to those appointed from among practising lawyers (80.3%), even after accounting for case-specific factors. This study, published in the Cambridge University Press journal, Journal of Law and Courts, suggests that judges transitioning from the district judiciary to the High Court tend to be less inclined to grant bail than those appointed directly from the legal profession.

The authors attribute this difference to the inherent flexibility in the bail adjudication process and the potential influence of a judge's prior experience and attitudes. Advocates argue that trial court judges, who have spent years in the district judiciary, may carry their conservative practices to the higher court, applying stricter standards to the accused.

Conversely, practising lawyers who have directly represented clients and witnessed the severe consequences of incarceration may be more inclined to grant bail. The disparity in bail decisions can have significant implications, as nearly 70% of India's prison population consists of undertrials awaiting trial. The study underscores the importance of understanding the judges' backgrounds and how it may impact their discretionary decisions in bail matters.