In SLP (CRL.) no.5191 of 2021 – SC – Supreme Court asks Govt to consider forging Bail Act; issues guidelines for courts, investigators to streamline grant of bail Justices SK Kaul & M M Sundresh [11-07-2022]

Read Order: SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 12, 2022:  Observing that the well recognised principle of bail being the rule and jail the exception is not followed properly by the country’s investigating agencies as well as the courts, the Supreme Court has asked the Central government to consider formulating a separate law to streamline the grant of bail.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh, in an 85-page-order, issued certain directions that should be kept in mind with regard to the issue of granting bail to undertrial prisoners.

Apart from a separate Bail Act that the government can consider forging, the bench said that investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply

with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar. 

Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action, the bench said.

The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of CrPC. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail, the Top Court further said.

“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 dated 07.02.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7608 of 2018 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,” it said in the order.

The Bench further said that there need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code. 

There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this court in Siddharth vs State of UP & Anr, the Bench said as part of the guidelines.

“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,” the Bench said. 

“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,” the order said, adding, “While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind.”

It said 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 vs Union of India & Ors, followed by appropriate orders.

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, said one of the guidelines.

All State Governments, Union Territories and High Courts are directed to

file affidavits/ status reports within a period of four months, the Bench said. It also directed the Registry to send copy of this judgment to the Government of

India and all the State Governments/Union Territories.