Welcome to Drishti Judiciary - Powered by Drishti IAS
         









Home / Editorial

Criminal Law

Satender Kumar Antil Case

    «    »
 05-Mar-2024

Source: The Hindu

Introduction

India's criminal justice system is marred by glaring statistics over 75% of its prison population comprises undertrials, with prisons operating at a staggering 118% capacity.

These figures underscore a systemic crisis that demands immediate attention. In case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022), the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the failings of the country's bail system in recognizing the issue of undertrial and granting bail.

What is the Summary of Case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI?

  • Problem:
    • India's jails are overrun by undertrial prisoners, comprising over 2/3rd of inmates.
    • Many faces unnecessary arrest despite minor charges, often poor, illiterate, including women.
    • This reflects a colonial mindset in law enforcement, contradicting democratic principles, emphasizing the need for sparing use of arrests.
  • Definition of Trial:
    • The word ‘trial’ is not explained and defined under CrPC.
      • An extended meaning has to be given to this word for the purpose of enlargement on bail to include the stage of investigation and thereafter.
    • In the former stage of investigation, an arrest followed by a police custody may be warranted for a thorough investigation, while in the latter what matters substantially is the proceedings before the Court in the form of a trial.
    • Similarly, an appeal or revision shall also be construed as a facet of trial when considering bail on suspension of sentence.
  • Definition of Bail:
    • The term “bail” has not been defined in CrPC, though it is used very often.
    • Bail is nothing but surety inclusive of a personal bond from the accused.
    • It means the release of an accused person either by the orders of the Court or by the police or by the Investigating Agency.
    • It is a set of pre-trial restrictions imposed on a suspect while enabling any interference in the judicial process.
    • Thus, it is a conditional release on the solemn undertaking by the suspect that he would cooperate both with the investigation and the trial.
  • Summary:
Nature of Offence Conditions Course to be Adopted by Court
Offences punishable with 7 years or less

1) Accused not arrested during interrogation.

2) Cooperated throughout the investigation including appearance before Investigating Officer whenever called.

1) Summon (Appearance through lawyer permissible)

2) Bailable warrant

    • Appearance of accused not necessary for cancellation of warrant.
    • Bail application of accused arrested with Non Bailable Warrant to be decided without taking him into physical custody.
Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, 7 years or more - On appearance of accused in court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits.
Special Acts containing stringent provision for bail - The aforesaid guidelines must be kept in mind

What were the Directions given by SC in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI?

  • Separate Enactment:
    • 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.
  • Compliance of Section 41 and 41A of CrPC:
    • Direction:
      • The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014).
      • Any dereliction on their part must be brought to the higher authorities' notice by the court followed by appropriate action.
    • Provision:
      • A police officer can arrest without warrant in a cognizable offence under Section 41 of CrPC.
      • As per Section 41A, of CrPC the police officer must issue a notice directing an accused to be present before him in cases where arrest is not required. Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
  • Default Bail on Non-Compliance:
    • The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of CrPC.
    • Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to a grant of bail.
  • Standing Order:
    • All the State Governments and the Union Territories were directed to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of CrPC.
  • Application on Other Provisions of CrPC:
    • There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the CrPC.
  • Compliance of Siddhartha v. State of UP (2021):
    • There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this court in Siddharth v. State of U P (2021).
    • SC in this case said that “If during investigation, there has been no cause to arrest the accused, merely because a charge sheet is filed, would not be an ipso facto cause to arrest the petitioner”.
  • Directions for Governments:
    • 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 must be filled quickly.
  • Directions to High Courts:
    • 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.
  • Section 440 CrPC:
    • While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of CrPC must be kept in mind.
  • Compliance of Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015):
    • An exercise must be done similarly to comply with the mandate of Section 436A of the CrPC at the district judiciary level and the High Court as directed by this Court in Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015), followed by appropriate orders.
    • In this case, to address Section 436A CrPC legislative policy and alleviate prison overcrowding, court directed jurisdictional Magistrates to hold weekly sessions in jails for two months starting 1st October 2014.
      • They will identify undertrial prisoners meeting release criteria, submitting reports to High Court Registrars promptly.
      • Jail Superintendents must facilitate court sittings. Orders disseminated for compliance.
  • Period for Granting Bail:
    • Bail applications should be disposed of within two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, except an intervening application.
    • Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within six weeks except for any intervening application.

How Undertrials Lack Safeguards?

  • While safeguards against arbitrary arrests theoretically exist, they fall short in protecting vulnerable sections.
  • Ambiguous justifications for arrests disproportionately target migrants and the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

What are the Challenges in the Current Bail System?

  • The current bail system operates on flawed assumptions of wealth and social capital, rendering 'bail not jail' meaningless for many undertrials.
  • Reform efforts must challenge these presumptions and prioritize equity and access to justice for all.
  • Structural barriers, from financial constraints to navigating legal complexities, hinder undertrials' ability to meet bail conditions.

What can be a Potential Way Forward to Bring Reforms in Bail Matters?

  • Bail reform is urgent, but it must be rooted in empirical understanding and systemic overhaul.
  • Develop diversion programs that offer counseling, community service, or restorative justice practices as alternatives to bail.
  • Allow judges greater discretion in setting bail conditions tailored to the individual circumstances of each case.

Conclusion

The undertrial crisis in India's criminal justice system demands immediate and concerted action. Meaningful reform requires a departure from archaic assumptions and a commitment to equity and justice for all. It is notable for courts to adhere to the guidelines given by SC in Satendra Kumar Antil Case along with other landmark judgments related to bail.