The idea of bail is at issue in the satender kumar antil vs cbi (2022) case. It highlights the norm, which is that incarceration is the unusual and bail is the rule. The Supreme Court of India received a special leave petition (SLP), and in granting the petition, it cited John E.E.D.’s Essay on Freedom and Power. One of the most fundamental needs of the modern man is liberty. It’s thought to be the fragile fruit of contemporary society.
It is a fundamental need of contemporary man and the core of a civilized living. The court noted the inadequacies in the Indian bail system, namely with the matter of defendants who are undergoing legal proceedings.
satender kumar antil vs cbi Case Facts
- In this instance, once the charge sheet was filed against him, the subject filed a plea for anticipatory bail.
- However, due to his inability to appear from the Court during the case, the motion was denied, and non-bailable warrants were issued.
- Following the filing of a special leave petition regarding his absence from the tribunal as well as the submission of an anticipatory bail petition, the accused person was then questioned by the Supreme Court.
- Later, in the 2018 case of Nikesh Tarach & Shah v. Union of India, an appeal was filed to clarify Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which had been declared invalid.
- The crimes committed in this case have been categorized into four classes by the Supreme Court: A, B, C, and D. Section 45 was eliminated by the Honorable Supreme Court in an effort to streamline the bail procedure.
- The Honorable Court further states that this is due to the carelessness with which bail was granted by lower courts. With a large volume of cases involving anticipatory bail issues, the honorable tribunal is also converted into a bail tribunal.
- Mr. Siddharth claims that the order dated October 7, 2021, did not place limitations on the amount of bail that might be granted. “We will state that the decree broadens the definition of bail, which advances legislative thought rather than adding new restrictions,” the bar declared.
- Furthermore, Section 45 would not be pertinent if Section 19 did not apply. Mr. Hariharan went on to suggest that the PMLA’s section 45 needs to be made clear.
- He declared that even in cases where the police department did not make an arrest in accordance with the PMLA and the suspect was brought along with the complaint, the accused person ought to be granted the same benefits as in prior instances.
- Mr. Raju disagreed with Mr. Hariharan’s idea, stating that such directives wouldn’t be feasible because the investigating officer might be dishonest in certain situations and fail to capture the offender.
- The bench responded, “The mere submission of an accusation document will not automatically constitute a cause if, during the course of the investigation, there is no cause to arrest the accused.”
- A comprehensive explanation of the same was given in the 16.08.2021 case of Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh &Anr. The bench contended that the tendency of lower courts to refuse bail would be unaffected by any decision rendered by the Supreme Court.
- Mr. Amit Desai claims that the Bombay Trial Court reads the guidelines as a ruling and ignores the laws governing the bail issue.
- According to Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, an individual who appears on a summons and satisfies the conditions listed in the court decision dated October 7th is eligible for relief under Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code and ought to apply for bond rather than bail.
- Even in cases of complaints, people need to file a bail application, says Mr. Desai. Although bail hearings shouldn’t go more than 15 to 20 minutes, the court noted that this is often the case. All of the time that the courts should be utilizing to prosecute cases is spent evaluating bail problems.
satender kumar antil vs cbi Issues
- Is it legal to arrest someone during an investigation, before or after the chargesheet is filed?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- After the chargesheet was submitted, the petitioner sought for anticipatory bail; but, because he did not show up for the court hearing, his plea was denied. The council drew attention to the discrepancies in the definition and grouping of offenses into four categories.
- The petitioner’s council presented a list of high courts to the court addressing their noncompliance with the Supreme Court’s bail standards.
- In addition, the petitioner raised with the court the problem of numerous convicts awaiting trial who are unable to follow bail requirements.
- The petitioner cited the ruling in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI by the Supreme Court, which established rules for granting anticipatory relief in cases when the accused had complied with the inquiry.
Respondent:
- The ASG raises a point that we agree with: in situations where the accused has not cooperated with the investigation, shown up for appearances before the investigating officers, or answered to summonses, and the court decides that judicial custody of the accused is necessary to finish the trial, further investigation, including the possibility of a recovery, is necessary, the aforementioned approach is unable to help the accused.
- According to Learned ASG, a separate bench of this Court is currently reviewing a modification that was made to category C of section 45 of the PMLA. That Bench would have to deal with that matter.
- Mr. Raju disagreed with Mr. Hariharan’s idea, stating that such directives wouldn’t be feasible because the investigating officer might be dishonest in certain situations and fail to capture the offender.
satender kumar antil vs cbi Judgment
- The Court noted that during the investigation and occasionally even after the charge sheet was filed, the police had misconstrued a number of criminal law rules pertaining to arrests.
- Such actions resulted in a person being detained without a verdict being rendered, which is against the Indian Constitution’s protection of the right to liberty and, in certain situations, even leads to the imprisonment of innocent people.
- The court further declared that the idea of presumption of innocence, which holds that an arrest does not serve a purpose unless a person is proven guilty, must be followed by courts, authorities, and police personnel in order to fulfill specific responsibilities and accountability.
- The court further noted that in order to better protect people from arbitrary arrests and to uphold their fundamental right to liberty, the Principle of Natural Justice must be applied and constitutional provisions correctly interpreted.
- By citing numerous judgments and significant rulings, the court provided a more expansive meaning of terminology associated with bail, such as “trial” and “bail,” as well as parts of the Code, such as Section 41, Section 41A, Section 167, Section 170, etc.
- The court additionally classified certain offenses for which an arrest is not possible.
- In its decision, the court emphasized the responsibilities of the federal and state governments with regard to bail issues and issued instructions based on its reading of sections 41 and 41A.
- It is imperative that the government and courts adhere to all of these principles.
- When initiating an arrest, rendering decisions on a person’s incarceration, and denying bail requests, the courts and law enforcement must take these criteria into account.
By providing a thorough interpretation of the laws governing arrest according to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Apex Court has attempted to address the issue in the current case.
The CrPC does not define the term “trial.” Thus, in order to expand the scope of bail to cover the investigative phase and beyond, it is necessary to give the word a broader definition. Police detention following an arrest may be necessary for a comprehensive investigation during the first phase of the investigation; in the latter phase, however, the court processes in the form of a trial are what really count. Similar to this, when evaluating bail for a sentence suspension, an appeal or revision will likewise be interpreted as a component of the trial.
The term “bail” is frequently used, but it is not defined in the CrPC. The term “bail” describes the providing of surety, which includes the accused’s personal bond. It refers to the release of an accused individual pursuant to court orders, police orders, or investigative agency orders.
The court has concluded that the investigative agencies and police officers must adhere to the provisions of sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC as well as the orders issued by the Hon’ble Court in the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case. The courts are responsible for ensuring that the CrPC’s Section 41 and 41A are followed. If there is any failure or non-compliance, the accused will be entitled to bail.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
