• Today: November 03, 2025

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI 2G Spectrum Case

03 November, 2025
251
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) — Bail Principles, Article 21 & “Necessity” Test Explained | The Law Easy

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI — 2G Spectrum Case

Easy classroom-style explainer: bail is the rule, jail the exception. Apply the necessity test, protect Article 21 liberty, and balance seriousness with fair-trial risks.

```
Supreme Court of India 2012 (2012) 1 SCC 40 Bail / Article 21 Reading time: ~7 min
Author: Gulzar Hashmi India Published: 2025-11-02
Supreme Court and liberty icons for Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2G Spectrum) bail ruling
```

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court clarified bail principles in a high-profile case. Bail is the rule; jail is the exception. Pre-trial custody must pass the “necessity” test: is it truly needed to secure presence, protect evidence, or prevent real risks? Article 21 demands careful balance between liberty and fair trial.

(2012) 1 SCC 40 Bail / Article 21 / Criminal Procedure

```

Issues

  • Which factors should courts weigh while deciding bail?

Rules

  • Bail is the rule; refusal curtails Article 21 liberty and needs sound reasons.
  • Object of bail is to secure attendance at trial—not to punish or prevent generally.
  • Necessity test: Custody only when truly necessary (flight risk, real tampering threat, repeat of specific offence).
  • Delay in trial weighs in favour of bail.
  • Balance seriousness and likely sentence with liberty; avoid using bail to “send a message”.

Facts (Timeline)

Skip to Judgment
Allegations: Conspiracy to obtain UAS licences for an ineligible company (2G Spectrum matter).
Charges: IPC 420, 468, 471, 109 & PC Act 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d).
Bail refused: Special Judge and High Court cite seriousness, evidence, likely sentence, tampering risk, absconding risk.
Appeal to SC: Accused challenge refusal; press for liberty and necessity standards.
Timeline of allegations, charges, bail refusals, and Supreme Court appeal in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI

Arguments

Appellants

  • Liberty first: Bail is norm; jail exceptional.
  • No necessity: No concrete material on flight or tampering risk.
  • Delay: Long trial timeline supports bail.

CBI/State

  • Serious charges and public interest.
  • Possibility of witness influence and absconding.

Judgment

Held: The object of bail is to secure the accused’s presence at trial. Pre-trial custody is not punishment. Apply the necessity test and protect Article 21. Seriousness matters, but cannot alone defeat liberty without concrete risks shown.

  • Presumption of innocence continues till conviction.
  • Imprisonment before conviction has punitive content—use sparingly.
  • Delay in trial supports grant of bail.

Court must balance liberty and society’s interest with reasons, not with labels.

Gavel and liberty scale highlighting bail principles in the 2G Spectrum case

Ratio Decidendi

  • Bail is default; refusal must be justified by necessity.
  • Article 21 requires minimal, reasoned intrusion into personal liberty.
  • Seriousness ≠ sole ground; consider evidence, likely sentence, delay, and real risks.

Why It Matters

This case is cited to remind courts that liberty is primary. Bail decisions must be based on facts and necessity, not only on the label of a case or public anger.

Key Takeaways

  • Bail = rule; Jail = exception.
  • Use the necessity test for custody.
  • Weigh delay, evidence, likely sentence, real risks.
  • No pre-trial punishment to “teach a lesson”.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: RuleReasonRelease

  1. Rule: Bail by default, jail only if needed.
  2. Reason: Show concrete risks (flight/tampering).
  3. Release: If risks aren’t real or trial is delayed.

IRAC Outline

Issue

What factors guide bail decisions in serious economic offences?

Rule

Bail is the rule; apply the necessity test; balance Article 21 liberty with fair-trial risks and seriousness.

Application

Absent specific, credible risks and amid long trials, jail before conviction becomes punitive.

Conclusion

Grant bail with conditions sufficient to secure presence and protect the process.

Glossary

Article 21
Right to life and personal liberty; bail refusal must respect this guarantee.
Necessity Test
Custody only if truly required to ensure trial fairness or presence.
Pre-trial Detention
Custody before conviction; not meant to punish or send a message.

FAQs

No. Gravity is relevant but not decisive. Courts need concrete reasons showing custody is necessary.

Then custody can be justified. Courts may also use strict conditions to neutralize risks.

Yes. Unreasonable delay tilts the balance towards liberty under Article 21.

No. Pre-trial custody is not for punishment or moral messaging.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Bail Article 21 Criminal Procedure Back to top
```

Comment

Nothing for now