Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation Miscellaneous Application No. 1849/2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191/2021

Case Study Caption

Brief Facts

• The Hon'ble Apex Court had earlier pronounced a judgment Satendra Kumar Antil V. Central Bureau of Investigationon 21.09.2021 wherein detailed guidelines were issued regarding manner or summoning and arrest in the cases where the accused has not been arrested during the investigation. Pursuant to the said judgment, certain applications were filed before the Apex Court seeking clarification on the guidelines issued in the said judgment. • The Apex Court made a detailed review of various provisions of law and judgments pertaining to bail and various aspects of personal liberty.

Issues

Guidelines which are to be strictly followed by the Investigation Agency while considering to arrest any accused and to be followed by the Courts while deciding the bail application.

Held

  • Aspects discussed by the Apex Court in this judgment:
  1. Bail is a rule and presumption of innocence.
  2. Mandatory Compliance of section 41, 41A and 60A of Cr.P.C.
  3. Section 87 and 88 of the Code – issuance of summons instead of warrants.
  4. Section 167(2) of the Code -Default bail
  5. Section 170, 204 and 209 – No need for filing separate bail application at the time of filing of charge sheet, except in certain exceptional cases wherein the remand of accused may be required during the trial.
  6. Section 389 of the Code – Suspension of sentence during the pendency of law.
  7. Section 436A of the Code- Maximum period of which under trial prisoner can be detained.
  8. Section 437 of the Code – To make the position clear, if the Magistrate has got the jurisdiction to try an offense for which the maximum punishment is either life or death, when such jurisdiction is conferred on the learned Magistrate, it goes without saying that the power to release the accused on bail for the offense alleged also can be exercised.

Guidelines issued by the Apex Court

The Apex Court issued the following directions, which may be subject to State amendments:

  1. 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.
  2. The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.
  3. The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.
  4. All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41and 41A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 07.02.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7608 of 2018 and the standing order issued by the Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41A of the Code.
  5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while consideringtheapplicationunderSection88,170,204and209

 

  1. 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) 1 SCC 676.
  2. 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 will have to be filled up expeditiously.
  3. 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.
  4. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release.
  5. While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440of the Code has to be kept in mind.
  6. An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by this Court in Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015) 13 SCC 605, followed by appropriate orders.
  7. Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.

All State Governments, Union Territories and High Courts are directed to file affidavits/ status reports within a period of four months.

Relevant Para No.

11, 67 & 73

"Disclaimer & Confirmation As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, law firms are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the “I AGREE” button below, user acknowledges the following:​

There has been no advertisements, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website; user wishes to gain more information about Mohit Khandelwal and Associates and its attorneys for his/her own information and use;

The information about us is provided to the user on his/her specific request and any information obtained or materials downloaded from this website is completely at their own volition and any transmission.

We are not responsible for any reliance that a user places on such information and shall not be liable for any loss or damage.

However, the user is advised to confirm the veracity of the same from independent and expert sources."