About the author:
Introduction:
The Supreme Court’s judgement for the case of Satinder Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation gave clarity on granting bail in cases where a person has not been arrested at the time of filing of the charge sheet. This judgement saves unnecessary harassment in certain instances, wherein despite not being arrested throughout the investigation, a person is subsequently arrested simply because the investigation is over, and so for this case:
- It was considered as a Special Leave petition
- And was before the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul & MM Sundaresh
In addition to the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar’s Case, few more guidelines were added in this case regarding arrest which are:
- Investigation agencies should check the compliance of Section 41 & 41 A of CrPC & the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar’s Case.
- Court will also have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of section 41 & 41 A of Cr PC.
Another section handled in this case is guidelines on granting bail (to those accused who were not arrested during investigation.)
Court observed that there are some “prerequisites” to consider the application
- Accused not being arrested during the investigation
- Accused cooperated throughout the investigation (means he appeared before the investigation officers whenever he was called for.)
Then the court shall categories the offences i.e.,
Category: A
- Offences punishable less than 7 years (includes both police case & complaint case)
- In addition, there are some guidelines issued with regard to this category.
- Taking cognizance after filing the charge sheet
- First Summons
- Then bailable warrant
- Non-bailable warrant if still not appearing
- If the accused is taking an undertaking then, he will appear on the next hearing NBW cancelled or changed to bailable warrant or summons.
- Considering bail application without taking custody &Grand interim bail.
Category B &D
- Death or Life imprisonment Offences or offences punishable more than 7 years & economic offences that are not covered by special Acts which are classified as Category C
Category C
Special Acts like UAPA, PMLA or NDPS
Guidelines on granting bail:
- Parliament may bring new legislation called the “Bail Act”.
- No insistence on bail while considering bail application under Sec. 88, 170, 204 & 209 of the code.
- Strict compliance of Mandate laid down in Sidharth Vs. UP’s case.
- Dispose of bail application within two weeks.
- Anticipatory bail is disposed of within 6 weeks.
For the Compliance of these orders;
- State & Central Govt. has to comply with the directions issued by the court.
- Need for Special court– High court has to undertake the exercise in consultation with state Government
- Vacancies of presiding Officers to be filled expeditiously.
- Bond amount shouldn’t be excessive
- If the accused has undergone detention for half of the maximum prescribed punishment during investigation, he shall be released on bail.
The court also agreed to the suggestion that the trial courts can grant interim bail.
Conclusion:
While such judgments do give us hope, they often only bring about external changes. Even though the present judgement will ease the process of bail after filing of charge sheet, a bulk of under-trial prisoners are arrested during the investigation, and continue to moulder in jail even after the commencement of trial. Unless structural solutions are found, for the excessive under-trial prison population, the legal principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” will continue to remain only on paper.
