The Supreme Court has formally directed the Union of India to consider a new Bail Law in line with the 2022 Satender Kumar Antil judgment, emphasizing compliance oversight led by Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On 23rd February, the Supreme Court of India has called upon the Union of India to provide insights into the possibility of introducing a new Bail Law, aligning with the recommendations laid out in its 2022 judgment in the Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation case. Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti, presiding over the case, issued a directive,
stating-
“In terms of the direction contained in para 100.1, the Union is directed to inform the Court as to whether any Bail Law is in contemplation or under preparation.”
The Court has extended its scrutiny to assess whether an evaluation has been conducted to determine the necessity of establishing additional Special Courts (CBI) in districts experiencing high case pendency, backed by relevant data. Additionally, the Union is tasked with informing the Court about the compliance of investigative agencies, excluding CBI, with the directives outlined in the Satender Kumar Antil case, aimed at curbing unnecessary arrests.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court| Direction On the Caste Certificate Procedure in Navneet Kaur Rana’s Case
The 2022 judgment in Satender Kumar Antil, led by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul (now retired) and MM Sundresh, suggested that the Union Government should introduce a specialized enactment resembling a “Bail Act” to streamline the bail-granting process.
Highlighting the need for such legislation, the Court drew parallels with the United Kingdom’s Bail Act, emphasizing its comprehensive approach to handling bail-related matters.
The Court noted-
“The Bail Act of the United Kingdom takes into consideration various factors, attempting to have a comprehensive law dealing with bails by following a simple procedure.”
The Act addresses issues such as prison overcrowding, warrant issuance, bail before and after conviction, and the exercise of power by investigating agencies and the court, among others.
Echoing the sentiment expressed in the UK’s legislation, the Court refrained from making explicit recommendations but urged the Government of India to consider the introduction of an Act specifically tailored for granting bail. The Court emphasized its belief in the necessity of such legislation, pointing out that the current legal framework is a continuation of the pre-independence system with modifications.
ALSO READ: Arvind Kejriwal’s Defamation Case: Supreme Court Challenged Over Video Retweet
The Supreme Court, in its directions issued, outlined a series of measures to ensure the proper implementation of arrest procedures and timely disposal of bail pleas.
The key directives are as follows:
a) Consider the introduction of a separate enactment, a Bail Act, to streamline the grant of bails.
b) Ensure investigating agencies and their officers adhere to Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the Court’s previous directives, with non-compliance subject to scrutiny by higher authorities.
c) Courts must satisfy themselves with the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code, and any non-compliance should entitle the accused to bail.
d) State Governments and Union Territories should establish standing orders for the procedure under Section 41 and 41A of the Code, in line with Delhi High Court’s order and Delhi Police’s standing order.
e) No insistence on a bail application when considering applications under Section 88, 170, 204, and 209 of the Code.
f) Strict compliance with the mandate from the court’s judgment in Siddharth, emphasizing that investigating officers need not arrest every accused at the time of filing chargesheet.
g) Compliance with court directives on the constitution of special courts, expeditious filling of vacancies in presiding officer positions, and a comprehensive examination of the need for special courts.
h) High Courts to identify undertrial prisoners unable to meet bail conditions, taking appropriate action under Section 440 of the Code for their release.
i) Adherence to Section 440 of the Code when insisting upon sureties.
j) Compliance with the mandate of Section 436A of the Code at the district judiciary level and High Court, with affidavits/status reports to be filed within four months.
k) Disposal of bail applications within two weeks, except where provisions mandate otherwise, and disposal of anticipatory bail applications within six weeks, with exceptions for intervening applications.
l) All State Governments, Union Territories, and High Courts directed to file affidavits/status reports within four months.
The next discussion on the matter is scheduled for 7th May.
CASE TITLE: [Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation]
[READ THE ORDER]
