User: what might be the possible consequences if these rights were no longer upheld.

Weegy: It is precisely this much needed jurisprudence of bail which is discussed in the course of this paper in the light of the personal liberty of a person and the value of that personal liberty under our constitutional system. [ This study attempts to explore the varied dimension of the concept of bail- as a right that must be respected by the courts and as a matter of concession left to the judicial discretion of the courts. The right to bail is inextricably linked to the knowledge and awareness of the accused of his right to obtain release on bail; this is further linked to Article 22(1) of the Constitution which provides that no person who is arrested shall be denied the right to consult and to be defended by legal practitioner of his/her choice. It is however remains an issue to be examined whether this provision carries with it the right to be provided the services of a legal practitioner at state cost, particularly in the light of Article 39A of the Constitution which directs the State to provide free legal aid- but is this an obligation on the part of State, enforceable in a court of law. Where does the right to bail fit into the constitutional scheme in the context of criminal jurisprudence contained in Article 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution? How may these human rights of accused as conferred by the Constitution be balanced against the growing crime rate and the need to protect society from criminals? Thus the law of bails ??.. has to be dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on one hand, the requirements of society for being shielded form the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz., the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty.? ]
Auto answered|Score .7981|AwesomeGuy200|Points 601|