Source: The Indian Express

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently granted statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam in a case involving charges of sedition and unlawful activity under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). This decision came after Imam's bail plea was challenged, and despite the court's ruling, he remains in custody. The statutory bail was granted under Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows bail when the accused has served half of the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offense. This ruling comes after Imam spent nearly four years in prison as an undertrial in the case.

What are the Grounds for Imam’s Bail?

• Charges against Imam under Section 13 UAPA carry a maximum sentence of seven years, while sedition, under which he is also charged, carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
  • In cases involving life imprisonment, 10 years is considered half the sentence for granting statutory bail.
• Supreme Court in 2021 ruling stayed the operation of Section 124A, which penalizes sedition.
  • As a result, trials on sedition charges, including Imam's, are effectively halted pending the determination of the provision's constitutional validity.
  • With no immediate prospects of a speedy trial, statutory bail became the primary avenue for release, especially since bail was previously rejected on merits.
• Although granted statutory bail, Imam remains in custody due to his involvement in another case related to the 2020 North East Delhi riots.
  • He faces several other cases across multiple states, including Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh.
  • He is not currently in custody for these cases, thus not requiring bail applications for release.
• Despite previous rejections of bail on merits by trial courts and the high court, Imam's recent bail was granted on technical grounds under Section 436-A CrPC.
  • This provision allows bail if the accused has served half of the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offense.

What is Section 436-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

• About
  • Section 436-A CrPC was introduced to protect the rights of under-trial prisoners who are held in jail for extended periods awaiting investigation, inquiry, or trial.
  • The provision aims to prevent the prolonged incarceration of individuals who have not been convicted of any crime, aligning with the fundamental principle of "presumption of innocence until proven guilty."
  • Prior to the enactment of Section 436-A, many under-trial prisoners were unjustly detained for significant durations, violating their rights and undermining the principles of justice and fairness within the criminal justice system.
• Section 436-A CrPC
  • Section 436-A of the CrPC limits the duration of detention for undertrial prisoners during investigation, inquiry, or trial of an offense not punishable by death to one-half of the maximum imprisonment period specified for that offense under the relevant law.
  • Upon reaching this threshold, the court is mandated to release the undertrial on personal bond, with or without sureties.
  • Enacted in 2005, this provision addresses the issue of overcrowding in prisons caused by a large population of undertrial prisoners, particularly those facing charges with shorter sentences.
  • It offers relief to undertrials by ensuring their release after serving half of the maximum imprisonment period specified for the offense they are charged with, promoting fairness and efficiency in the criminal justice system.

Legal Provision of 436A CrPC

• As per Section 436A CrPC, a person who has spent one half of the maximum period of the prescribed sentence as an under trial shall be released on bail.
• It states that where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry, or trial under the CrPC, of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties.
  • Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties.
  • Provided further that no such person shall, in any case, be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry, or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law.
• When determining the duration of detention for granting bail under this Section, any period of detention passed to delays in proceedings caused by the accused shall be excluded.

What are Other Protections for Undertrials?

• Bail for Bailable Offenses: According to Section 436 CrPC, for all bailable offenses, it is mandatory for courts to grant bail. An accused willing to furnish a bail bond must be granted bail in such cases. However, for non-bailable offenses, the decision to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court.
• Default Bail to Prevent Lengthy Incarceration: To prevent lengthy periods of incarceration without trial, courts also grant default bail. Section 167(2) of the CrPC stipulates that the police have 60 days to complete the investigation and file a final report before the court. This period extends to 90 days for offenses punishable by death, life imprisonment, or a minimum jail term of 10 years.
• Criteria for Default Bail: If the police fail to conclude the investigation and submit a chargesheet within the specified period, default bail is granted. It's important to note that default bail applies only to Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) crimes. Special legislations such as UAPA may have relaxed timelines for police investigations.

What is the Scope of Section 436 A of CrPC?

• Discretionary Relief: While Section 436-A provides a framework for the release of undertrial prisoners who have served half of the maximum sentence for their offense, it's important to note that the grant of bail is not automatic. The first proviso grants the court discretion to withhold such relief if it deems further detention necessary, even if the conditions outlined in the provision are met.
• Court's Authority to Deny Bail: The first proviso empowers the court to deny bail if it believes that the continued detention of the undertrial prisoner is warranted, despite the satisfaction of the prerequisites specified in Section 436-A. This discretionary power allows the court to consider factors such as the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, or the risk of flight.
• Absolute Relief in Specific Circumstances: Conversely, the second proviso clarifies that the relief granted under Section 436-A is absolute if the undertrial prisoner has already served the maximum term prescribed for the offense they are charged with. In such cases, the court is bound to release the prisoner on bail, as further detention would contravene the provisions of the law.

What are the Relevant Cases related to Section 436A?

• Hasan Ali Khan v. State the Bombay High Court (2011) the court was pleased to grant bail to an undertrial prisoner accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after the individual had served half of the maximum term prescribed by the special statute.
  • It was held: “Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the case of the Applicant is to be considered in view of the judgment of Bhim Singh v. Union of India, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be necessary to go into the merits of the matter. Hence, this Court believes that by virtue of Section 436-A CrPC, 1973, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail”.

Conclusion

The recent grant of statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam, based on Section 436-A CrPC, underscores the protection of under-trial prisoners' rights. Despite facing charges carrying significant sentences, the halt in sedition trials and the technical grounds for bail have brought attention to the fairness and efficiency of the criminal justice system.