BAIL REFORMS - POLITY

News: Supreme Court presses need for reform on tedious bail processes

 

What's in the news?

       The Supreme Court has been reaching out to the Government to “think out of the box” and not fight every case of bail all the way up to the top court.

       Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the second senior most judge in the top court, has been vocal about his concern of how almost every case of bail is being challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, forming more than one-third of the cases in the Supreme Court.

 

Key takeaways:

       In July last year, a Supreme Court judgment had urged the Government to bring a new Act exclusively to simplify and streamline bails.

       The court had observed how the mindset of investigating agencies leaned more towards the draconian power of arrest rather than the protection of individual liberty.

       In July last year, a Supreme Court judgment had urged the government to bring a new Act exclusively to simplify and streamline bails.

       The court had observed how the mindset of investigating agencies leaned more towards the draconian power of arrest rather than the protection of individual liberty.

 

Bail laws in India:

Though there isn’t any separate law in the Indian legal system that defines bail, related provisions are mentioned in the CrPC and punishments under the IPC.

       The CrPC categorises offences as bailable and non-bailable.

       As per Section 436, bail is a right in bailable offences and the police or court, whoever has custody, is bound to release the accused following furnishing of a bail bond, with or without surety.

       For a non-bailable offence, an accused cannot claim bail as a right. The discretion lies with the courts.

       In such cases, Section 437 empowers the Magistrate to deal with pleas, except for offences ‘punishable with death or imprisonment for life’.

       A provision mandates the court to consider granting bail to an accused below 16 years, someone who is sick, or is a woman. The CrPC also lists provisions for the cancellation of bail.

 

 

Problems in the Current Bail Law:

1. Overcrowding prisons:

       Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners.

       Over 75% of India’s prison population are undertrials while overcrowding in Indian prisons stands at 118%. These stark realities are often cited for the need of bail reform.

2. Mostly people from vulnerable sections:

       Effective enforcement of safeguards against arbitrary arrest would eliminate the need to seek bail from courts.

       Lack of safeguards led to arrest of migrants, homeless people, people from disadvantaged sections.

       Data from the Fair Trial Programme (FTP) in Yerwada and Nagpur central prisons can be instructive here. Of the undertrials (2,313) represented by the FTP, 18.50% were migrants, 93.48% did not own any assets, 62.22% did not have any contact with family, and 10% had a history of previous incarceration.

3. Court's discretion:

       The power to grant bail is largely based on the court’s discretion. 

       A large number of undertrials continue to remain in prison despite being granted bail due to challenges in complying with bail conditions.

4. Lack of finance:

       Lack of means to arrange for money/property and local sureties are the most significant reasons accounting for an undertrial’s inability to comply with bail conditions.

5. Multiple and Dispersed Provisions:

       At present, provisions related to arrest and interrogation, issue of warrants and summons, execution of bonds and sureties, powers of police and courts, are dispersed across CrPC and various binding SC guidelines.

6. Colonial Mindset:

       The magistrates often ignore the rule of ‘bail, not jail’ due to persistence of a colonial mindset. This mindset is emboldened by old colonial laws which were drafted to serve the purpose of the British.

       The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was first drafted in 1882 and continues to be in use with amendments from time to time.

7. Delays in Bail application:

       Sometimes, bail applications are kept pending for months. Unnecessary arrest coupled with no bail is a double whammy. Appeals by the convicted are pending for decades in some HCs.

8. Lack of Uniformity:

       The SC observed that magistrates do not necessarily exercise their discretionary powers uniformly which violates Article 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.

       Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court is required as these are the foundations of judicial dispensation. In most cases, the courts do not record reasons for rejecting the bail.

 

SC guidelines:

       The Supreme Court noted that despite modifications, the CrPC continues to retain its pre-independence form.

       It observed that “unwarranted arrests” curtail liberty under Article 21.

       Separate law for Bail - Stressing the need to ensure due procedure for arrests and a time limit for disposal of bail applications, the Court asked the Centre to consider introducing an enactment in the nature of a “Bail Act” to streamline the process.

  1. Bail applications have to be disposed of within two weeks except when provisions mandate otherwise, the Court stated.
  2. On anticipatory bail, it said a plea has to be decided within six weeks.
  3. The Court said that there need not be any insistence on a bail plea while considering a plea under Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 of CrPC.
  4. This significantly increases the bail prospects of an accused, as courts typically tend to remand the accused on production by the police or on appearance before it in response to a summons or a warrant, and consider bail only if the accused files an application.
  5. Investigating agencies and officers have to comply with Sections 41 and 41A, it said, adding that action will follow any dereliction of duty. It ruled that non-compliance with Sections 41 and 41A at the time of arrest will entitle the accused to bail.
    1. Section 41 deals with the arrest in a cognisable offence where punishment is imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years.
    2. Section 41A relates to the procedure of the notice of appearance before a policeman in cases where the arrest is not required. Notably, a police officer is required to record reasons for arrest or not to arrest in writing as per the rule.
  6. The Bench directed State Governments and Union Territories to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Sections 41 and 41A to avoid unwarranted arrests.
  7. The Court directed high courts to identify undertrials who are unable to comply with bail conditions and take action to facilitate their release.

 

Arrest is a “draconian” measure that should be used “sparingly”. It held that bail continues to be the rule and jail an exception, the touchstone of Article 21, and highlighted the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.