Ethics · 5 Aug 2026

diffusion of responsibility bail jurisprudence

Consider the following Assertion (A) and Reason (R): Assertion (A): Under Indian bail jurisprudence, the continued custody of one accused cannot ordinarily be justified merely because a co-accused in the same case remains absconding. Reason (R): Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees personal liberty and courts have cautioned against detention practices that substitute a fugitive's absence for evidence specific to the individual before them. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above Assertion (A) and Reason (R)?

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests the ability to recognise causal constitutional reasoning behind a bail principle, distinguishing genuine explanation from two independently true but unconnected statements.

Subscribe / Login in App →
About this question

Why in news

Dr Vinod Kumar Ranga, former head of office of Delhi's Central Procurement Agency, has sought bail in the alleged Rs 700-crore medical procurement fraud, arguing his liberty cannot be curtailed due to a co-accused's absconding status.

Why for UPSC

This tests whether aspirants understand the constitutional reasoning underlying a specific bail principle, not just the isolated fact that "liberty was argued" - a distinction UPSC's Assertion-Reasoning format is designed to probe.

Prelims summary

Article 21's guarantee of personal liberty underlies the bail principle that one accused's custody cannot be justified solely by a co-accused's absconding status - courts require evidence specific to the individual.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.