Download Bail Law and Jurisprudence in India and more Summaries Corporate Law in PDF only on Docsity!
I) STATE V JAGJIT SINGH [1962]
Facts: – The respondent Jagjit Singh along with two others was prosecuted for conspiracy and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act. The case against the three persons was that they in conspiracy had passed on official secrets to a foreign agency. The respondent applied for bail to the Sessions Judge; but his application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Thereupon the respondent applied under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the High Court, and the main contention urged before the High Court was that on the facts disclosed the case against the respondent could only be under Section 5 of the Act, which is bailable and not under Section 3 which is non-bailable. The High Court took the view that as the other two persons prosecuted along with the respondent had been released on bail, the respondent should also be so released, particularly as it appeared that the trial was likely to take a considerable time and the respondent was not likely to abscond. Issue: whether the High Court‘s order should be set aside whether this is a case which falls prima facie under Section 3 of the Act. Held- The High Court should have considered the matter even if it did not consider it proper at that stage to decide the question of whether the offence was under Section 3 or Section 5, on the assumption that the case fell under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act erects an offence which is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State The offence is of a very serious kind affecting the safety or the interests of the State. The case against the respondent is in relation to the military affairs of the Government, and prima facie, therefore, the respondent if convicted would be liable upto fourteen years‘ imprisonment. In these circumstances considering the nature of the offence, it seems to us that this is not a case where discretion, which undoubtedly vests in the court, under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should have been exercised in favour of the respondent. It is true that two of the persons who were prosecuted along with the respondent were released on bail prior to the commitment order; but the case of the respondent is obviously distinguishable from their case in as much as the prosecution case is that it is the respondent who is in touch with the foreign agency and not the other two persons prosecuted along with him. The fact that the respondent may not abscond is not by itself sufficient to induce the court to grant him bail in a case of this nature. Further, as the respondent has been committed for trial to the Court of Session, it is not likely now that the trial will take a long time. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent is erroneous and should be set aside.
II) MOTI RAM V. STATE OF M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47
Facts: The petitioner, a poor mason, has appealed for bail in a criminal case pending in court. The initial bail order by the Supreme Court did not specify details, leading the magistrate to demand a surety of Rs 10,000, which the petitioner couldn't afford. Additionally, the magistrate refused the suretyship of the petitioner's brother, citing his assets being in another district. The petitioner, feeling the injustice of being priced out of his liberty due to his poverty, sought modification of the bail order to Rs 2,000 or a personal bond. This led to three legal issues: (1) whether the court can release a person on their own bond without sureties, (2) the criteria for quantifying bail amounts, and (3) whether the court can reject a surety based on their location. Issue: Three legal issues arise:
- Can the court release a person on their own bond without sureties for a non-bailable offense?
- What criteria should guide the court in determining the bail amount?
- Is it within the court's power to reject a surety based on their location? Judgment: The court recognizes the need for a broader perspective on bail jurisprudence, considering the petitioner's rights and the principles of social justice. It discusses the historical origins and contemporary trends in bail law, particularly focusing on the unfairness faced by the poor in obtaining bail. The court observes that there is no explicit definition of bail in the Criminal Procedure Code but acknowledges that the concept has evolved over time. It refers to American jurisprudence, which views bail as a means of releasing a person from custody, with or without sureties. Considering various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court interprets bail liberally to include release on one's own bond, with or without sureties. It emphasizes that the court should be more lenient in granting bail to vulnerable individuals such as the poor, young, sick, and women. The court condemns the practice of demanding exorbitant bail amounts, which effectively deny liberty to the poor. It also criticizes geographical discrimination in bail requirements, highlighting that all Indians should be treated equally under the law regardless of their location or language. Ultimately, the court orders the magistrate to release the petitioner on his own bond of Rs 1,000, emphasizing the need for a reevaluation of bail laws by Parliament to ensure social justice for all citizens.
The Court said as far as the bail of the offence punishable with death or life imprisonment is concerned, it is necessary for the Court to consider whether the evidence discloses a IV) GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1980) Facts- The case is related to the Minister of Irrigation and Power of the Punjab Government, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia. He, along with other ministers, was accused of grave corruption. Anticipating their arrest, the ministers filed applications before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. Realising the importance of the matter, the single judge referred the case to the full bench of the High Court. The High Court dismissed the applications on the ground that the powers of the High Court to grant anticipatory bail were limited and had to be guided by Section 437 of the CrPC. These powers could be exercised only under certain special circumstances. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the applicants preferred an appeal through a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. Issue- The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a straight-jacket formula could be applied to Section 438 of the CrPC, which has to be followed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail. Contentions on behalf of the appellants The first contention on behalf of the appellants was that denial of bail to a person who has not been convicted of an offence amounts to deprivation of his personal liberty. Thus, the Court should not lean towards unnecessary conditions being imposed on granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. It was further contended that the legislative intention behind Section 438 was not to impose any unnecessary restrictions. Another important argument raised by the appellants was that even if there were any restrictions imposed under Section 438 of the CrPC, it would have been struck down as being violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Any unreasonable restriction on the power to grant bail would be violative of the personal liberty of the person seeking bail. Such a person has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Contentions on behalf of the respondents The primary contention on behalf of the respondents was that anticipatory bail should be granted in exceptional cases wherein the applicant is able to prove that the arrest is anticipated for frivolous or malicious grounds. It was further argued that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, and therefore, whenever it appears that the proposed accusations are prima facie plausible, the applicant should be left to the ordinary remedy of applying for bail under Section 437 or Section 439 of the CrPC after he is arrested.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail and an appeal was made to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Held The Supreme Court refused to accept the contentions raised by the Respondents as well as the conditions laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which it considered to be the true meaning of Section 438. It was held that it could not be accepted that there was a legislative oversight while drafting the provision of Section 438, as it is not an ordinary provision of law. It entails one of the most important rights of a person, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the legislature intended to impose any restrictions on the power of granting anticipatory bail, it would have included the same under the provision itself. Moreover, it was stated that the legislature was not penning down the provision on a clean slate. It relied on Section 437 and Section 439 while drafting Section 438. Moreover, the Parliament also relied upon the 41st Law Commission Report, wherein the power of a court to grant anticipatory bail was duly considered. The report concluded with the connotation that the court must have the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail and ought not to be fettered with unnecessary conditions. According to the Court, the legislature conferred wide powers of granting anticipatory bail on the Courts of Sessions and the High Courts for two reasons. Firstly, it would be very difficult to determine fixed conditions to be pursued by the courts to grant anticipatory bail. Secondly, to grant ample discretion to the courts to exercise such power. The Court also held that anticipatory bail is different from bail under Section 437 of the CrPC. A bail is important to protect the personal liberty of an individual and the presumption of his innocence. An anticipatory bail protects liberty at the time of arrest, whereas a bail under Section 437 can be granted after the arrest has taken place and the data is provided to the court. It is based on this data that the court can accept or reject the application for bail for a non-bailable offence. Whereas in the case of anticipatory bail, the court has the power to protect the liberty of an individual in the event of an arrest. The Court also clarified that it is not the case that an anticipatory bail has to be granted without imposing any conditions whatsoever. Section 438(2) of the CrPC gives the courts the power to impose such conditions as they may deem necessary while granting anticipatory bail. Thus, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court and provided certain guidelines to be followed by the High Courts and the Courts of Session while granting anticipatory bail under Section 438, which have been discussed hereunder. Supreme Court gave the following guidelines- Registration of FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise the power under Section 438:
- Interim order can be passed without notice to the Public Prosecutor but before passing the final order notice must be given;
The Supreme Court considered the facts and circumstances. Ultimately, it upheld the High Court’s decision to cancel the bail. The appellant’s involvement in the removal of the Shakti Idol during the communal riot was a significant factor. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining law and order and protecting witnesses. VII) SUSHILA AGGARWAL V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER (DECIDED IN 2019) Facts: In the light of the conflicting views of the different Benches of varying strength regarding the scope of Section 438 of the CrPC, which provides for grant of anticipatory bail and its limitations, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court. The question that was put forth before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition was heard by a constitutional bench headed by Justice Kurian Joseph as it noted contradictory views in earlier judgments as to whether an anticipatory bail should be for a limited period of time or not. Issues: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decided a reference made in Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. , where two questions had been posed for consideration: (1) Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail? (2) Whether the life of anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court. SC Held Anticipatory bail should not be limited to a fixed period.
- But if there are special or peculiar circumstances, the court may limit the tenure of anticipatory bail.
- The protection granted under Section 438 should be in favour of accused without any restriction of time.
- Court also clarified that the life of anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time when accused is summoned or charges are framed. It continues till the end of trial except in peculiar conditions.
- The order of anticipatory bail should not be a 'blanket order' in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offence and claim protection from arrest.
- It should be confined to offence or incident for which apprehension of arrest is sought. It cannot operate in respect of future incidents.
VIII) SATENDRA KUMAR ANTIL V CBI [2021]
FACTS
The Supreme Court since 2021 has given a trilogy of judgements on Satender Kumar Antil v CBI case, wherein it has laid down specific guidelines for the police for making an arrest under S.41, S.41A and S. 60A. Satender Kumar Antil, the petitioner, was accused of seeking bribes while working as an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner at the Employees Provident Fund Organisation’s regional headquarters in Noida. In the FIR lodged by the CBI, the petitioner (Satender Kumar Antil) was identified as an accused under Section 120-B of the Penal Code (penalty of criminal conspiracy) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (offence pertaining to public servant being bribed). After the investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed with the court, the accused was not arrested. Summons were issued by the court for the presence of the accused. The accused failed to present himself before the court and filed for an anticipatory bail application. The court rejected the bail application and a non-bailable warrant was issued. The accused filed a special leave petition with the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court laid down a set of guidelines bifurcated into three sets of decisions that famously came to be known as the Antil Trilogy. ISSUE RAISED The constitutionality of the procedure used for granting bail. Unnecessary arrest by the police during an investigation or before or after the filing of the chargesheet. Tussle between bail and Article 21 Bail is a rule Jail is an exception CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS The petitioner Satender Kumar Antil, had applied for anticipatory bail post-filing of chargesheet against him. His application was rejected due to his absence in the court during the proceedings and non-bailable warrants were issued against him. On being questioned for being absent from the proceedings and on the filing of anticipatory bail, the accused filed an application before the Supreme Court in which the counsel pointed out certain inconsistencies with regard to clarification of categorisation
Category C- Includes offences which are punishable under special acts like PMLA, UAPA, Companies Act, NDPS Act etc. Category D- Includes Economic Offences that are not covered by special act. In the second ruling, the court gave various clarifications to the parameters established in the first ruling, where the court noted its goal behind the initial order was to streamline the bail procedure. The court further stated that the prosecution is not misinterpreting the first batch of decisions by simply categorising some offences under Category D, which may or may not be cognizable offences. The court explained its ruling in Siddharth v State of UP (2022), in which the court ruled that if there is no reason to arrest the accused individual, just filing a chargesheet would not result in an arrest. The Supreme Court restated bail jurisprudence and defined several kinds of offences in the third batch of decisions. The court reaffirmed its previous rulings on arrest procedures (S.41,41A and 60A of CrPC). Following this ruling, the Supreme Court underlined strict adherence to the court’s findings in the Siddharth V State of UP, holding that in circumstances where the prosecution does not require the accused’s custody, there is no need to make arrests under Section 170 of the CrPC. The court also made it clear that any bail application must be disposed of within a period of 2 weeks and for anticipatory bail, the time period given by the court is six weeks. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah V Union of India case that getting bail is a part of our Fundamental Right under Article 21 and it cannot be denied until and unless the law prohibits bail on that offence Guidelines
- Compliance with Section 41, 41A – Non compliance entitles accused to bail
- Indefeasible right u/s 167(2) – cannot be taken away by COVID
- Don’t ask separate bail applications at each stage
- Section 436A applies to special acts in absence of any special provisions
- No need to arrest each and every accused while filing chargesheet
- HC to identify UTPs unable to comply with bail conditions – apply 440(2)
- Disposal – 2 weeks [6 weeks for anticipatory] 8. Separate enactment to streamline bail
