9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 152 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking bail after filing of the final report on a wrong interpretation of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Presumption of innocence - HELD THAT - Certain directions are issued. These directions are meant for the investigating agencies and also for the courts. Accordingly, it is deemed appropriate to issue the following directions, which may be subject to State amendments. a) The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails. b) The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar 2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT . Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action. c) The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail. d) All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi in AMANDEEP SINGH JOHAR VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ANR. 2018 (2) TMI 2078 - DELHI HIGH COURT and the standing order issued by the Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41A of the Code. e) There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code. f) There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this court in Siddharth 2021 (8) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT . g) The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously. h) The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release. i) While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind. j) An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by this Court in Bhim Singh 2014 (9) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT , followed by appropriate orders. k) Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application. l) All State Governments, Union Territories and High Courts are directed to file affidavits/ status reports within a period of four months. The Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment to the Government of India and all the State Governments/Union Territories.
Issues Involved:
1. Misinterpretation of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Categorization of offenses and guidelines for bail. 3. Compliance with Sections 41 and 41A of the Code. 4. Conditions and procedures for issuing summons and warrants. 5. Considerations for bail under Sections 167(2), 204, 209, 309, 436A, 437, 439, and 440 of the Code. 6. Special Acts and economic offenses. 7. Role of courts in safeguarding liberty and ensuring uniformity in bail decisions. 8. Introduction of a Bail Act and compliance with judicial directions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Misinterpretation of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The judgment addresses the continuous issue of courts misinterpreting Section 170 of the Code, which does not mandate the arrest of an accused upon filing of a chargesheet. The court clarified that "custody" in this section does not necessarily mean physical custody but can include the presentation of the accused before the court. The court emphasized that if the investigating officer believes that the accused will not abscond or disobey summons, there is no need for arrest. 2. Categorization of Offenses and Guidelines for Bail: The court categorized offenses into four types: - Category A: Offenses punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less. - Category B: Offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for more than 7 years. - Category C: Offenses under Special Acts with stringent bail provisions. - Category D: Economic offenses not covered by Special Acts. The court provided guidelines for each category, emphasizing that bail should not be denied merely due to the nature of the offense but should consider factors like cooperation during the investigation and the necessity of arrest. 3. Compliance with Sections 41 and 41A of the Code: The court reiterated the importance of compliance with Sections 41 and 41A, which govern the arrest procedures. It directed that any non-compliance should be brought to the notice of higher authorities and could entitle the accused to bail. The court also directed all states and Union Territories to issue standing orders to ensure compliance with these sections. 4. Conditions and Procedures for Issuing Summons and Warrants: The court emphasized the need for a sequential approach in issuing summons and warrants: - Summons should be issued first. - If the accused does not appear, a bailable warrant should be issued. - Only if the accused fails to appear despite a bailable warrant, a non-bailable warrant should be issued. The court criticized the routine issuance of non-bailable warrants without proper application of mind. 5. Considerations for Bail under Various Sections: - Section 167(2): Emphasizes the right to default bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period. - Sections 204 and 209: Highlight the discretion of magistrates in issuing summons or warrants and committing cases to sessions courts. - Section 309: Stresses the need for day-to-day trial proceedings and limits on adjournments. - Section 436A: Mandates release on personal bond for undertrial prisoners who have served half of the maximum sentence. - Sections 437 and 439: Discuss the conditions for granting bail, especially for serious offenses, and the role of higher courts in modifying bail conditions. - Section 440: Ensures that bail amounts are not excessive and considers the financial circumstances of the accused. 6. Special Acts and Economic Offenses: The court recognized the stringent bail provisions under Special Acts like NDPS, PMLA, and UAPA but emphasized that these should not override the fundamental right to liberty. It also addressed economic offenses, stating that they should not be treated uniformly but considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the gravity of the offense and the potential impact on society. 7. Role of Courts in Safeguarding Liberty: The court highlighted the critical role of courts in protecting individual liberty and ensuring that bail decisions are consistent and fair. It stressed that courts must not let the low conviction rates influence their decisions negatively and must uphold the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. 8. Introduction of a Bail Act and Compliance with Judicial Directions: The court suggested the introduction of a Bail Act to streamline bail procedures and ensure uniformity. It directed various authorities to comply with existing judicial directions, fill vacancies in special courts, and ensure that undertrial prisoners who cannot meet bail conditions are identified and assisted. Summary/Conclusion: The court issued several directions to ensure proper compliance with bail procedures, including: - Considering the introduction of a Bail Act. - Ensuring compliance with Sections 41 and 41A of the Code. - Avoiding unnecessary arrests and ensuring proper issuance of summons and warrants. - Facilitating the release of undertrial prisoners who have served a significant portion of their potential sentence. - Disposing of bail applications promptly. - Filing status reports on compliance within four months. The judgment emphasizes the protection of individual liberty, the need for judicial consistency, and the importance of timely and fair bail decisions.
|
