Report No. 268

1 Pre-Trial Release and the Right to be Presumed Innocent: A Handbook on Pre-Trial Release at International Law, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada (LRWC), March 2013, See also, Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Proceedings of a "Workshop on the Survey of United Nations and Other Best Practices in the Treatment of Prisoners in the Criminal Justice System", Salvador, Brazil, 12-19 April 2010, at p. 15.

2 Fletcher Moore. Magistrates 'Law and Suggested Increase of Jurisdiction and Powers, 9 J. OF THE STAT. & SOC. INQUIRY SOC'YOF IR. 671, 673 (1893).

3 AIR 1978 SC 1594.

4 41st Law Commission Report, 1969, The Code Criminal Procedure, 1898, Vol. I.

5 For further details see Annexure - C

6 Jason Gilbert, "Blame our bail system for overcrowded Ottawa jail" The Ottawa Sun (Jan. 14, 2016) available at: http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/01/14/blame-our-bail-system-for-overcrowded-ottawa-jail (last visited on Jan. 25, 2017).

7 National Crime Records Bureau, Prisons Statistics (Ministry of Home Affairs, 21st Edition, 2015).

12 999 UNTS 171.

13 Article 10 (2) (a) of ICCPR reads: "Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons."

14 Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 32, at para 30.

15 Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Dec. 12, 2005 (E/CN.4/2006/7), available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=11600 (last visited on Dec. 24, 2016).

16 Id. at para. 66

17 Supra note 7

18 Woolmington v. DPP [1935] UKHL 1; See also Golbar Husain & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr. (2015) 11 SCC 242 and Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana (2015) 3 SCC 138.

19 Smirnova v. Russia, Applications nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99 (2003).

20 Christoph J. M. Safferling, Towards an International Criminal Procedure 46 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001).

21 These rules were recently amended in 2015, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty was first found in Rule 84, but in the new rules it is to be found in Rule 111. These rules are also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules.

22 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951).

23 441 U.S. 520, 533 (1979). The Court opined that: "...[t]he presumption of innocence is a doctrine that allocates the burden of proof in criminal trials...[b]ut it has no application to a determination of the rights of a pre-trial detainee during confinement before his trial has even begun..."; See also Nico Steytler, Constitutional Criminal Procedure: A Commentary on the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 134 (Butterworths, Durban,1998) (contending that the right to bail does not stem from the presumption of innocence).

24 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)

25 [2002] 3 S.C.R. 309.

26 [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665.

27 1988 Cr.LJ 1036 (Ker).

28 Bandy v. United States, 81 S. Ct. 197 (1960).

29 Siddharam Satlingappa v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312.

30 AIR 1978 SC 429.

31 Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

32 Caleb Foote, "The Coming Constitutional Crisis in Bail" 113 U. PA Law Review. 1125, 1180 (1965).

33 See Bail and Its Discrimination Against the Poor: A Civil Rights Action as a Vehicle of Reform, 9 Val. U. L. Rev. 167 (1974)

34 UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), ICCPR General Comment No. 18: Non-discrimination, 10 November 1989

35 Id; See also Principle 5(1), UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment; Rule 6(1), Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

36 314 U.S. 160 (1941).

37 296 F. Supp. 401 (D.D.C. 1967) affirmed sub nom. Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

38 Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951). See generally Alan R. Sachs, Indigent Court Costs and Bail: Charge Them to Equal Protection, 27Md. L. Rev. 154 (1967).

39 351 U.S. 12 (1956).

40 Bandy v. United States, 81 S. Ct. 197 (1960)

41 Supra note 32

42 4 Crim. Proc. § 12.2(b) (3d ed.) citing Pannell v. United States, 320 F.2d 698

(D.C.Cir.1963) (Bazelon, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

43 Supra note 40

44 A. Hellmann, "The Right to a Pauper's Bail" Bench and Bar, Kentucky Bar Association (2016).

45 Article 3 reads: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person..." ; Article 9 reads : "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.".

46 Communication No. 458/1991, UN Doc. ICCPR/C/51/D/458/1991 of 10 August 1994

47 HR Committee (2006) Concluding Observations: Italy (CCPR/C/ITA/CO/5), at para. 14.

48 W. v. Switzerland, 254 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 15 (1993).

49 AIR 1978 SC 597.

50 Bashira v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1968 SC 1313; See also Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral, AIR 1979 SC 420.

51 AIR 1994 SC 1349.

52 Supra note 30.

53 AIR 2007 SC 451.

54 M.R. Mallick, "Bail: Law and Practice" 8 (Eastern Law House, Kolkata, 2009).

55 (1994) 3 SCC 569.

56 Supra note 1.

57 Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439-40 (1973) (contemplating alternative remedies, but concluding that dismissal must remain ―the only possible remedy).

58 AIR 1979 SC 1360.

59 AIR 1992 SC 1701.

60 Ranjan Dwivedi v. CBI, Through the Director General, AIR 2012 SC 3217.

61 Majali v. S (41210/2010) [2011] ZAGPJHC 74 para 33.

62 P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2002 SC 1856.

63 S v Dlamini & Ors.; S v. Joubert; S v. Schietekat [1999] ZACC 8; 1999 (7) BCLR 771 (CC).

64 See Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281.

65 Halsbury's Laws of England, , Vol II para 166 ( 4th Edn., 1998)

66 Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1023

67 Supra note 3.

68 Supra note 32 at 290.

69 Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 777.

70 AIR 1951 Mad 1042.

71 See Vaman Narian Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2009 SC 1362 and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40.

72 Sections 41(1 & 2), Cr.P.C.

73 154th Report by Fourteenth Law Commission of India, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (1996), Vol. I & II.

74 Third Report of the National Police Commission 31 (1980).

75 Id.

76 Supra note 74 at 32

77AIR 1994 SC 1349.

78 Kerr v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963). See also Brinegar v. United States,338 U. S. 160, 338 U. S. 175-176 (1949), quoting from Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 267 U. S. 162 (1925).

79 (2014) 8 SCC 273.

80 Section 41A (4), Cr.P.C.

81 Paul H. Robinson, "Punishing Dangerousness: Cloaking Preventative Detention as Criminal Justice) Faculty Scholarship 38 (2001).

82 Ibid.

83 Supra note 81 at 1445

84 Edward L. Barrett Jr., "Police Practices and the Law--From Arrest to Release or Charge" 50 Cal. L. Rev. 11 (1962).

85 A. Barth A., The Price of Liberty, 19 (Viking Press,1961).

86 Rai, Janak Raj, Bail: Law and Procedures, Universal Law Publishing, 4th edn, 2009 p. 175

87 B. Kumar , "Laws of Custody in India: An Analysis of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure", Academike, Lawoctopus' Law Journal (2014).

88 Raj Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 1983 Cr.LJ 1009

89 2002 Cr.LJ 2907

90 Babu Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 527.

91 While the Magistrate is required to extend legal aid to the accused on first production (see Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1) as a matter or practice, legal aid is generally provided only at the time of cognizance of the case.

92 Section 309 (2) proviso, Cr.P.C.

93 Section 309 (1) and (2), Cr.P.C.

94 Arun Shokeen, Trials (http://documents.mx/documents/trials.html) (last Visited on May 16, 2016)

95 AIR 2008 SC 78.

96 (2000) 10 SCC 438.

97 Supra note 95

98 AIR 2015 SC 3285.

99 Maharashtra Judicial Academy, "Summary of Papers Written by Judicial Officers on The Subject: Law Relating to Arrest, Remand and Bail" available at : http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Summary%20of%20Criminal%20group.pdf (last visited on Jan. 25, 2017).

100 78th Report by Eighth of Law Commission of India, Congestion of Under Trial Persons in Jail, 1979.

101 Pravin Kumar Chandrakant Vyas v. State, 2001 (3) GLR 2755.

102 Id.

103 Supra note 101 and 96.

104 Santh Prakash v. Bhagwandas Sahni, 1969 MLW (Cri) 88.

105 AIR 2009 SC 1341

106 Id

107 Supra note 64.

108 Azeez v. State of Kerala, 1984 (2) Crimes 413 (Ker).

109 Mir Hasim Ali v. Emperor, AIR 1918 Bom 254.

110 T.N. Jayadeesh Devidas v. State Of Kerala: 1980 Cr.LJ 906

111 Public Prosecutor v. Raghuramaiah (1957) 2 Andh. W. R. 383

112 Waryam Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1923 Lah 663.

113 Supra note 54.

114 Id.

115 Pondicherry Police Manual, "Security for Keeping the Peace and for Good Behaviour" (Chap XLIX).

116 Dayanidhi Sherangi v. State of Orissa, 1978 Cr.LJ (NOC) 104.

117 Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 1.

118 (2013) 3 SCC 77.

119 (1994) 5 SCC 410.

120 Id; See also, Pragya Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 10 SCC 445.

121 Supra note 119.

122 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).

123 AIR 1958 P&H 123; See also, Ngangom Iboton Singh v. Union Territory of Manipur, AIR 1969 Mani 6

124 Govind Prasad v. State, 1975 Cr.LJ 1249 (Cal).

125 Supra note 30.

126 AIR 1962 SC 253.

127 AIR 1978 SC 179.

128 AIR 2007 SC 451; Supra note 64.

129 AIR 1977 SC 2447. See also, State v. Anil Sharma AIR 1997 SC 3806.

130 (2005) 8 SCC 21.

131 AIR 2005 SC 921.

132 Ariana Lindermayer, "What the Right Hand Gives: Prohibitive Interpretations of the State Constitutional Right to Bail" 78 Fordham L. Rev 267 (2009).

133 36 Cr.LJ 711

134 18 U.S.C.§ 3145(c); United States v. Di Somma, 951 F.2d 494, 497 (2d Cir. 1991).

135 AIR 1978 SC 527.

136 United States Bail law § 3142(c)(1)(B).

137 § 3142(c)(1)(B); See also, D.N. Adair, The Bail Reform Act of 1984 (Federal Judicial Center, 2006).

138 United States v. Goosens, 84 F.3d 697, 702 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Vargas, 925 F.2d 1260, 1265 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. French, 900 F.2d 1300, 1302 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Brown, 870 F.2d 1354, 135 8 n.5 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Rose, 791 F.2d 1477, 1480 (11th Cir. 1986) United States v. Frazier, 772 F.2d 1451, 1452- 53 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

139 United States v. Kills Enemy, 3 F.3d 1201, 1203 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1138 (1994) (search of defendant awaiting sentencing valid pursuant to warrantless search condition); Cf. United States v. Scott, 450 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2006) (drug test pursuant to warrantless search condition must be supported by probable cause, though court cautioned that it does not intend to establish categorical prohibition on drug-testing bail conditions).

140 United States v. Welsand, 993 F.2d 1366 (8th Cir. 1993).

141 United States v. Johnson, 446 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding supervised release condition restricting computer use).

142 § 3142(c)(2).

143 United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 388-89 (1st Cir. 1985); See generally, Adair, D. N., & Federal Judicial Center. (2006). The Bail Reform Act of 1984. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center.

144 Supra note 24 ("To determine whether a restriction on liberty constitutes impermissible punishment or permissible regulation, we first look to legislative intent.... We conclude that the detention imposed by the Act falls on the regulatory side of the dichotomy.");

145 Id.; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536-37 (1979); L.O.W. v. Dist. Court of Arapahoe, 623 P.2d 1253, 1256 (Colo. 1981); see also Supra note 27.

146 Supra note 129.

147 AIR 2011 SC 312.

148 Supra note 129.

149 AIR 1980 SC 1632.

150 Law Commission of India, "Forty-first Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898" Vol. I (1969) at para 39.9.

151 48th Report of the Law Commission of India, Some questions under the code of criminal procedure Bill, 1970.

152 Supra note 29

153 Supra note 129.

154 Supra note 149.

155 Supra note 129.

156 Supra note 149.

157 Sheonandan Mondal v. State of Bihar, 1980 BLJ 258; Sankaranarayanan v. S.I. of Police 1983 MLJ (Cri) 13; T. Nadar v. State 1982 MLJ (Cri) 250.

158 State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia, AIR 1995 SC 1198.

159 (2013) 15 SCC 570.

160 Supra note 149.

161 Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1985 Cr.LJ 1750 (Raj)

162 AIR 1985 SC 969.

163 Supra note 149.

164 Id.

165 AIR 1996 SC 1042.

166 1977 Cr.LJ 1523. See also Parvinderjit Singh and Anr v. State (U.T. Chandigarh) and Anr, AIR 2009 SC 502

167 1989 Cr.LJ 2405.

168 (1998) 9 SCC 348.

169 AIR 2005 SC 1057.

170 AIR 2005 SC 498.

171 Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, AIR 2005 SC 1299.

172 Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349; Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh AIR 1996 SC 2176.

173 Manjit Prakash v. Shobha Devi, AIR 2008 SC 3032.

174 (2014) 10 SCC 754.

175 The Supreme Court has cited and relied on Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), Supra note 149 in para 16, which states,"succinctly explained the provision regarding cancellation of bail under the Code, culled out the differences from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (the old Code) and elucidated the position of law vis-à-vis powers of the courts granting and cancelling the bail"

176 Public Prosecutor v. George Williams, 1952 Cr.LJ 213; Subodh Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SC 802; Paras Ram v. State AIR 1951 HP 13; Emperor v. Rautmal Kanumal, AIR 1940 Bom 40; Emperor v. B.B. Singh, AIR 1943 Oudh 419; Narendralal Khan v. Emperor, ILR 36 Cal 166; Shyamlal v. State of U.P., 1983 (2) Crimes 407; State v. Laxman, AIR 1959 Mani 47; Osman Piroo v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Sind 187; Bomanji Wookerji v. State, AIR 1955 Mys 96; Ashok Kumar Banerjee v. State, 1982 Kash LJ 363; Birendra Singh v. State, 1984 ALJ 1111.

177 Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1475.

178 Goenka (Smt.) v. Rajesh Goenka, 1986 (1) Crimes 325.

179 Sant Ram v. Kalicharan, 1977 Cr.LJ 486.

180 State v. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961

181 National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Ministry of Home Affairs, Crime in India, 2016.

182 AIR 2001 SC 3317.

183 Abdul Hamid khan v. State of Gujarat, 1989 Cr.LJ 468.

184 Id.

185 Ss. 19, 24 and 27A, The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.

186 (2004) 3 SCC 619.

187 Ss. 19, 24 and 27A, The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.

188 Section 36A(4), The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.

189 (1994) 6 SCC 731.

190 Chapter V: Release on Bail: Law and Practice.

191 Supra note 189; and Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2957.

192 AIR 2003 SC 2172.

193 (2013) 2 SCC 590.

194 The Australian (Editorial) November 5, 1985

195 Rousseau Jean-Jacques, The Social Contract (Cole G translator, Reprint, Cosimo Inc 2008) p. 3

196 AIR 1988 SC 922.

197 D. Veerashekmaran v. State, 1992 Cr.LJ 2168 (Mad).

198 1994 (1) SCALE 673.

199 Supra note 191.

200 Id.

201 (2003) 12 SCC 237.

202 People's Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 456

203 AIR 2004 SC 4899.

204 Section 43D(5), The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

205 2010 SCC OnLineGau 586.

206 The Supreme Court itself recognized this possibility in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, Supra note 55, when it stated that "we have come across cases wherein the prosecution unjustifiably invokes the provisions of the TADA Act with an oblique motive of depriving the accused persons from getting bail and in some occasions when the courts are inclined to grant bail in cases registered under ordinary criminal law, the investigating officers in order to circumvent the authority of the courts invoke the provisions of the TADA Act. This kind of invocation of the provisions of TADA in cases, the facts of which do not warrant, is nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the Act by the police."

207 Section 49(2), The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002.

208 Id.

209 Section 43D(2), The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

210 A.Conte, Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:Commonwealth Approaches: The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand 487-88 (Springer, 2010).

211 Id.

212 Section 21(4), Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999.

213 Section 21(2), Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999.

214 2006 AIR SCW 6384.

215 AIR 2007 SC 1133

216 AIR 2005 SC 2277.

217 Donald W. Price, "Crime and "Regulation": United States v. Salerno" 48(3) La. L. Rev. 743 (1988).

218 N. Gurnani , Economic Scams in India, Academic, Apr 2015.

219 Id.

220 AIR 1987 SC 1321.

221 2001 Cr.LJ. 4475.

222 (2007) 3 SCC 2282.

223 (2008) 7 SCC 591.

224 (2013) 7 SCC 439; See also J. Gogoi , "Socio-economic Offences" Annual survey of Law Vol. XLIX 1002 (Indian Law Institute, New Delhi).

225 Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, AIR 2003 SC 2748.

226 Niranjan Narayan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642.

227 (1977) 4 SCC 291

228 Masood Ali Khan v. State of U.P., AIR 2009 SC 1465.

229 (1995) 2 SCC 513.

230 Ravi Kant S. Patil v. Sara Bouma S. Bagali, 2006 (1) JT (SC) 578; State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Jaganathan, AIR 1996 SC 2449; K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I. Chandigarh, AIR 2001 SC 3320; and B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N., AIR 2001 SC 3435.

231 State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan, AIR 2004 SC 1188.

232 Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol 8, p.85

233 Keshwananda Harinarayan Swami v. State, 1997 Cr.LJ 3173

234 Praveen Agarwal v. CBI, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4873.

235 Aneesha Mathur, "PIL Challenges Law that Keeps Accused in Jail after Acquittal", Indian Express (Aug. 21, 2014); "Steps taken to repeal a provision on bail, Centre tells HC", Business Standard (Nov. 19, 2010).

236 (1994) 35(1) GLR 581

237 Supra note 73

238 1998 (3) GLR 2031

239 2012 (2) ACR 1261

240 See Harry I. Subin, Book Review of R. Goldfarb, Ransom-A Critique of the American Bail System 114(4) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 630-36 (1966).

241 Warren L. Miller, "Bail Reform Act of 1966: Need for Reform in 1969" 19 Cath. U. L. Rev. 24 (1970).

242 AIR 1983 SC 1086

243 Supra note 3

244 Planning Commission, "Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011-12" Government of India (July 22 2013).

245 Section 441 Cr.P.C.

246 Section 446 Cr.P.C.

247 Id.

248 Section 440 (1), Cr.P.C.

249 Section 440 (2), Cr.P.C.

250 1996 Cr.LJ 43

251Government of Gujarat, Report of the Legal Aid Committee (1971)(Chairperson: PN Bhagwati, the then Chief of Justice of the Gujarat High Court); Government of India, Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs.

252 Report of the Expert Committee on Legal Aid: Processual Justice to the People (1973) (Chairperson: Justice VR Krishna Iyer), Government of India, Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs.

253 Supra note 73

254 Supra note 252

255 Supra note 251

256 Id. at 77 - 78

257 Supra note 58.

258 Section 441, Cr.P.C.

259 Supra note 3

260 See: Moti Ram, supra note 3; Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. State of Bihar AIR 1985 SC 1666; Sandeep Jain v. NCT of Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 714; M Sreenivasulu Reddy v. State of Tamil Nadu(2002) 10 SCC 653; and Amarjeet Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi, JT 2002 (1) SC 291

261 Supra note 189.

262 (2015) 13 SCC 603.

263 1996 (4) SCALE 11.

264 Supra note 7.

265 Larry Laudan & Ronald J. Allen, Deadly Dilemmas II: Bail and Crime, 85 Chicago-Kent. L. Rev. 23 (2010)

266 Id.

267 Supra note 79.

268 State v. Mehar Singh & Ors., 1974 Cr.LJ 970

269 Id.

270 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)

271 (2014) 4 SCC 453.

272 (2013) 1 SCC 314.

273 203rd Report by the Eighteenth Law Commission of India, Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Anticipatory Bail).

274 V.K. Singh, "Economic Crimes and Their Impact on Indian Economy" The Organizer (2017).

275 Id.

276 Statement of Objects and Reasons, The Narcotic Druqs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Bill, 1988, seeking to amend the NDPS Act, 1985, acknowledged that : "Even though the major offences are non-bailable by virtue of the level of punishments, on technical grounds, drug offenders were being released on bail".

277 S. Omondi, "Balancing the Constitutional Right to Bail and State Security in the Context of Terrorism Threats and Attacks In Kenya" 3(2) Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science 23-44 (2015).

27 8Id.

279 Supra note 262.

280 Ms. Divya Iyer v. Tihar Jail

(http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SA_A_2015_000375_M_161809.pdf) (Last Visited on May 16, 2016)

281 Supra note 262.

282 Nair and Sen, Trafficking in Women and Children, Orient Blackswan, 2005, p 308.

283 Wiseman, Pre-trial Detention and the Right to be Monitored, Yale Law Journal, 2014,Vol. 123, Issue no. 5

284 'Courts And Pre-Sentencing' (http://www.corrections.govt.nz, 2017) <http://www.corrections.govt.nz/ /courts_and_pre-sentencing/em_bail.html> accessed 15 March 2017. Various States like Bahamas, United Kingdom have embarked upon electronic monitoring system.

285 Australian Law Reform Commission, "Report on Bail and Family Violence" 114.

286 Id.

287 C. Macmalian C., State of The Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment (Pretrial Justice Institute, 2011).

288 Id.

289 See generally, Charles E. Ares, Ann Rankin, and Herbert Sturz, "The Manhattan Bail Project: An Interim Report on the Use of Pre-Trial Bail," 38(2) New York University Law Review 67-95 (1963); Rational and Transparent Bail Decision Making: Moving from a Cash-based to a Risk-based Process ( Pretrial Justice Institute, 2012).

290 Supra note 3

291 Supra note 7