Source: Indian Express  

Introduction 

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on 23rd August 2024, held that Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) would have retrospective application to undertrials across the country. This provision, which replaces Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (CrPC) allows for the release of undertrials on bail under certain conditions. 

What was the Case of Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors.? 

Background

• The Present matter arises from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated in 2013. 
• The PIL was initiated suo motu by the Supreme Court of India upon receipt of a letter from former Chief Justice of India R.C. Lahoti, highlighting critical issues pertaining to prison conditions across the country. 
• The primary issues brought to the Court's attention included overcrowding in prisons, unnatural deaths of prisoners, and inadequacy of trained prison staff. 
• In furtherance of its supervisory jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has been monitoring the implementation of various directives aimed at ameliorating prison conditions and safeguarding prisoners' rights. 
• The Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in identifying salient issues and monitoring compliance with the Court's directives. 
• The matter has seen significant legislative developments, notably the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which came into effect on 1st July , 2024, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
• Section 479 of the BNSS, which supersedes Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, introduces more lenient provisions for the release of undertrial prisoners, particularly first-time offenders. 

Court Observation  

• The Supreme Court recognized that Section 479 of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),2023 is an important tool to address the problem of overcrowding in prisons. 
• The Court emphasized that this law should be applied fairly to all eligible undertrials, regardless of when their cases were filed.  
  • This means even people arrested before the new law came into effect can benefit from it. 
• The judges acknowledged that there are two main groups who can benefit from this law:  
  • Regular undertrials who have spent half of their potential maximum sentence in jail 
  • First-time offenders who have spent one-third of their potential maximum sentence in jail 
• The Court stressed the importance of acting quickly on this issue.  
  • They told jail superintendents to start reviewing cases right away and to try to process all eligible cases within three months. 
• The judges recognized this complex task will require coordination between jails and courts. They set up a system where jail officials need to report their progress to higher authorities. 
• Overall, the Court's language and directives show they view this as an urgent matter of justice and human rights. They're trying to ensure that people who are legally eligible for release don't stay in jail unnecessarily. 
• The court acknowledged that the new law (BNSS) is more favorable to undertrials than the old law (CrPC), especially for first-time offenders. 
• The judges confirmed that this new law will apply to all undertrials, even if their cases started before 1st July, 2024, when the new law came into effect. This is a big deal because it means more people can benefit from the new rules. 
• The judges also set up a reporting system.  
  • Jail superintendents need to report to their bosses, who then need to prepare detailed reports for the court.  
  • These reports should include:  
    • How many prisoners qualify for release under the new law? 
    • How many applications for release have been sent to the courts? 
    • How many prisoners have actually been released? 
• The court made it clear that District and Sessions Judges, who lead the Undertrial Review Committees, are responsible for making sure this happens. This puts the responsibility on senior local judges to oversee the process. 

What is Section 436A of CrPC? 

• Section 436A deals with maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained 
• This provision applies to persons under investigation, inquiry, or trial for offences where the punishment does not include death as one of the specified punishments. 
• The section mandates that an undertrial prisoner shall be released on personal bond, with or without sureties, if they have undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum imprisonment period specified for the alleged offence. 
• The Court retains discretionary power to order continued detention beyond the one-half period or to release the person on bail instead of personal bond. This discretion must be exercised after hearing the Public Prosecutor and recording reasons in writing. 
• An absolute ceiling on detention is imposed, prohibiting detention during investigation, inquiry, or trial for a period exceeding the maximum imprisonment term provided for the alleged offence. 
• The computation of detention period for granting bail excludes any delay in proceedings caused by the accused. 
• The section balances the interests of justice by providing for release on personal bond while maintaining judicial discretion to extend detention in appropriate cases. 
• The mandatory involvement of the Public Prosecutor in decisions to extend detention ensures representation of the State's interests in the bail determination process. 
• The exclusion of time delays caused by the accused in computing the detention period serves as a safeguard against potential misuse of the provision. 
• The provision does not apply to offences punishable by death, indicating a legislative intent to treat the most serious offences differently in terms of bail consideration. 
• The use of personal bond as the default mode of release, with the option for the court to impose bail instead, reflects a presumption in favor of release without financial conditions. 

What is Section 479 of BNSS? 

• Section 479 of BNSS deals with the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained. 
• The provision applies to persons under investigation, inquiry, or trial for offences where the punishment does not include death or life imprisonment. 
• The general rule provides that an undertrial prisoner shall be released on bail if they have undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum imprisonment period specified for the alleged offence. 
• The provision exists for first-time offenders, defined as those who have never been convicted of any offence in the past.  
  • Such individuals shall be released on bond if they have undergone detention for a period extending up to one-third of the maximum imprisonment period specified for the alleged offence. 
• The Court retains discretionary power to order continued detention beyond the one-half period or to release the person on bail bond instead of personal bond. However, this discretion must be exercised after hearing the Public Prosecutor and recording reasons in writing. 
• An absolute ceiling on detention is imposed, prohibiting detention during investigation, inquiry, or trial for a period exceeding the maximum imprisonment term provided for the alleged offence. 
• The computation of detention period for granting bail excludes any delay in proceedings caused by the accused. 
• A limitation is placed on this provision's application in cases involving multiple offences or cases against the same person.  
  • In such instances, the Court is barred from releasing the accused on bail, subject to the maximum detention period proviso. 
• An affirmative duty is placed on the Superintendent of the jail where the accused is detained. 
  • Upon completion of the relevant detention period (one-half or one-third, as applicable), the Superintendent is obligated to make a written application to the Court for the release of the accused on bail. 
• The provision creates a statutory mechanism for regular review of undertrial detention, potentially alleviating the issue of prolonged incarceration without conviction. 
• The mandatory involvement of the Public Prosecutor in decisions to extend detention ensures representation of the State's interests in the bail determination process. 
• The exclusion of time delays caused by the accused in computing the detention period serves as a safeguard against potential misuse of the provision. 
• The provision does not apply to offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, indicating a legislative intent to treat serious offences differently in terms of bail consideration. 

Difference Between Section 346A CrPC and 479 BNSS 

• Scope of Exclusion:  
  • Section 436A CrPC excludes offences where death is specified as one of the punishments.  
  • Section 479 BNSS extends this exclusion to offences punishable by both death and life imprisonment. 
• Differentiation of Offenders:  
  • Section 436A CrPC applies uniformly to all undertrials.  
  • Section 479 BNSS introduces a distinction for first-time offenders, providing a more lenient threshold for their release. 
• Threshold for Release:  
  • Section 436A CrPC provides a uniform one-half period of the maximum prescribed imprisonment for all undertrials.  
  • Section 479 BNSS prescribes a one-third period for first-time offenders and retains the one-half period for others. 
• Mode of Release:  
  • Section 436A CrPC mandates release on personal bond, with or without sureties.  
  • Section 479 BNSS prescribes release on bail for general cases and release on bond for first-time offenders. 
• Multiple Offences:  
  • Section 436A CrPC is silent on the applicability in cases of multiple offences. 
  • Section 479 BNSS explicitly bars release on bail in cases involving multiple offences or cases, subject to the maximum detention period proviso. 
• Proactive Measures:  
  • Section 436A CrPC does not mandate any proactive measures by jail authorities.  
  • Section 479 BNSS imposes an affirmative duty on the Jail Superintendent to apply for the release of eligible undertrials. 
• Legislative Intent:  
  • Section 436A CrPC reflects a uniform approach to undertrial detention. 
  • Section 479 BNSS demonstrates a more nuanced approach, potentially aimed at further decongestion of prisons and differential treatment based on criminal history. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's ruling on Section 479 of the BNSS marks a significant shift in how undertrials are treated in India. This new criminal law, which applies to all cases regardless of when they started, aims to reduce prison overcrowding by making it easier for undertrials, especially first-time offenders, to get bail. The court has set up a system to ensure this law is implemented quickly and fairly, potentially helping many people who have been in jail for long periods without conviction.