Report No. 78

2.22. Liberal approach.-

These arguments support a stringent approach. On the other hand, in favour of adopting a liberal approach, it could be stated that, in the first place, a person accused of crime is entitled to remain free until adjudged guilty, so long as his freedom does not threaten to subvert the orderly process of criminal justice, so that his freedom could have this adverse effect only if he deliberately fails to appear at the time and place appointed for the purpose. Secondly, pending formal adjudication of guilt, his status ought not to be assimilated to that of a convicted person.

Thirdly, if kept in custody, he is impeded in preparing his defence, since, in custody, unrestricted consultation with counsel is difficult. Fourthly, if he is kept in custody, his earning capacity is impaired, thereby using hardship and economic deprivation. Fifthly, there is a large class of persons for whom any bail is "excessive bail', they are the people loosely referred to as indigents. For such persons, provisions bail prove more or less illusory. These arguments would show that the question has to be decided on a balance conflicting considerations.