Revocation of bail warranted only if continuing liberty is 'so egregious' that it undermines justice: Supreme Court

📌 Summary:

• The Supreme Court said interference with bail orders is warranted only where the continuation of liberty is "so egregious that it undermines the administration of justice"
• The Court deprecated the routine practice of challenging bail orders before it under Article 136, holding that its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction should be invoked only in exceptional cases
• The oral observations came from a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan, hearing petitions by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Chhattisgarh government challenging bail granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court to Chaitanya Baghel (son of former CM Bhupesh Baghel) in an alleged liquor-scam case
• The ruling reinforces the principle that personal liberty, once granted through bail, should not be lightly disturbed

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 Polity — the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, judicial restraint, and the protection of personal liberty in bail jurisprudence.

📝 Prelims Facts:

• Article 136 grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) from any court or tribunal in India (except military tribunals)
• The Bench was headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant
• The petitions were filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Chhattisgarh government

🔑 Key Term: Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) — a Constitutional provision giving the Supreme Court discretionary, extraordinary power to hear appeals against any judgment or order of any court/tribunal in the country.