Courts have several methods of releasing defendants on bail. The judge determines which of these methods is used. Another option is for the accused to post bail or promise money. The surety may be signed by a professional surety, the accused, or the accused`s family and friends. The signature of the bail is a promise that the accused will appear in the specified criminal proceedings. Failure by the defendant to appear will result in the bonders paying the amount provided to the court. The amount of bail is usually determined taking into account the seriousness of the alleged crime. Some people may think that bail is granted to anyone charged with a crime, but there is no real customary right to bail. In Chau v. DPP (1995) 3 NSWLR 639 ALR 430; 82 A Crim R 339 (CA), Gleeson J. stated: In Anglo-Saxon Britain, violence and quarrels were a real and socially destabilising means of righting real or perceived wrongs.

These approaches were originally incorporated into the early legal system through the process of ostracism and community justice of « booing and blatant » self-defense. [34] Over time, the local justice system has been increasingly free from violence, through the system of « bots, » private payments to compensate for grievances, and « wites, » payments to the monarch. Since wrongdoing is still essentially a private matter, a value payment is a simple, non-violent solution. [35] Given that prisons were not a functioning system for safe housing at the time, escaping to escape justice was a systemic risk. To combat this risk, the alleged perpetrators were allowed to pay « bail » equal to the exact equivalent of their bot, in exchange for their release on the trial date. [36] However, some offences remained so serious that only detention was appropriate. [37] Once a person has been charged, they should normally be released, either on bail or without bail. [55] The exceptions are as follows: Many states have a « bail plan » that lists the recommended amount of bail for a particular offence. At the first appearance in court (the indictment), the judge may set bail at the amount indicated in the schedule or another amount depending on the specific facts of the crime and the accused. [75] Sometimes bail is tied to a certain behaviour of the accused; For example, that they have no contact with the alleged victim.

Bail is the amount that defendants must pay to be released pending trial. Bail is not a fine. It should not be used as a punishment. The purpose of bail is simply to ensure that the accused appear at trial and at any preliminary hearing where they are required to be present. Bail is returned to defendants at the end of their trial, less processing fees in some states. Indian law emphasizes the principles of the presumption of innocence. This principle embodies the right not to be arbitrarily detained and serves as a bulwark against punishment prior to conviction. More importantly, it prevents the state from successfully using its enormous resources to inflict more harm on an unconvicted defendant than it can inflict on society. In considering the defendant`s bail applications, courts are required to balance considerations of personal liberty with the public interest. Accordingly, the granting of a deposit should be the rule rather than the exception. [23] The Supreme Court stated in its judgments: « The deprivation of personal liberty when bail is denied is too precious a value of our constitutional system, recognized under section 21, that the decisive power to deny it is a great deal of trust that can be exercised not incidentally, but in court, with a keen concern for the cost to the individual and the community. Glorifying impressionist orders as a margin of discretion can sometimes make a contentious game decisive for a fundamental right.

After all, the personal freedom of an accused or convicted person is fundamental, which is legally obscured only in relation to the procedure established by law. The courts have also ruled that foreigners cannot be deprived of the right to apply for bail. The Delhi Supreme Court stated: « The law does not allow for a distinction to be made between Indian nationals and foreign nationals in relation to the granting of bail.