CITATION – Civil Appeal No. 7598 of 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT- 11-07-2022
PETITONER- Satendra KumarAntil
RESPONDENT- CBI
BENCH– Justice Sanjay kishankauland Justice M.M Sundresh
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a probe is finished when the investigative agency presents its final conclusions to the court once the police report has been filed. In accordance with Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 3, the investigating agency may ask the relevant Magistrate to remand the accused in judicial custody so that the trial can begin if it claims to have gathered enough proof to establish a prima facie case. The accused, however, cannot be placed in judicial custody if he or she has the ability to post a personal bond or a surety bond with a guarantee that they will show up in court as needed.
FACTS:
In this case, the person in question submitted a request for anticipatory bail following the filing of the charge sheet over him. However, the motion was denied and non-bailable warrants were given as a result of his unavailability from the Court during the course of the case[1]. Thereafter the charged individual underwent questioning by the Supreme Court following the submission of a Special Leave Petition over his absence from the tribunal and the submission of an anticipatory bail plea. Later an appeal was made to clarify Section 45 of the PMLA Act[2] that was overturned in the 2018 case of Nikesh Tarach and Shah v. Union of India[3].The Supreme Court has divided the wrongdoings committed in the present matter into four groups: A, B, C, and D.The honourable Supreme Court wanted to simplify the bail process, thus it struck out section 45. The honourable Court also mention that because of the lower courts’ recklessness in giving bail.The honourable tribunal is also transformed into a bail tribunal with high number of cases involving anticipatory bail issues. According to Mr. Siddharth, the ruling from October 7, 2021, did not impose restrictions on the granting of bail. The bar said, “We will state that the decree in no way adds new restrictions, but rather advances legislative thought by broadening the definition of bail”.In addition, if Section 19 is not applicable, Section 45 wouldn’t be relevant[4]. Mr. Hariharancontinued by saying that section 45 of the PMLA should be clarified.He stated that the person charged should receive the same benefits as in previous situations even if the police department did not make an arrest under the PMLA and the suspect was brought with the complaint.Mr. Raju objected with Mr. Hariharan’s notion saying that such instructions wouldn’t be possible since the investigating officer may be corrupt in some circumstances and fail to apprehend the culprit.The bench answered, “If during the course of investigation, there is no cause to arrest the accused,The mere submission of an accusation document would not automatically constitute a cause[5].”A broad clarification of which regarding the same was provided in the case of Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh &Anr., dated 16.08.2021.The bench made an argument that any ruling issued by the Supreme Court would have no impact on subordinate courts’ propensity to deny bail.According to Mr. Amit Desai, the Trial Court in Bombay disregards the legislation governing the issue of bail and interprets the guidelines as a judgement.Mr. MukulRohtagi stated that if a person arrives on summons and fits the requirements outlined in the court order from October 7th, then that individual is entitled to relief under Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code and should apply for bond rather than bail[6].People must submit a bail application even in complaints instances, according to Mr. Desai. The Court observed that while bail hearings shouldn’t last beyond 15 to 20 minutes, they frequently do.Evaluating bail issues takes up all the time that the courts ought to be using to prosecute case
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether striking down of Section 45 of the PMLA is right or not?
- Whether the unnecessary arrests of the person charged during an inquiry, or both before and after the chargesheet was filed, is valid or not ?
CONTENTION
Petitioner
- A point raised by Mr. Luthra is that even if the trial court has been given notice to consider bail, it is not prohibited from providing interim bail based on the accused’s actions throughout the course of the inquiry, which did not call for his detention.
- Mr. Hariharancontinued by saying that section 45 of the PMLA should be clarified. He stated that the person charged should receive the same benefits as in previous situations even if the police department did not make an arrest under the PMLA and the suspect was brought with the complaint.
- A fair remark was made petitioner lawyer that, according to Mr. Luthra’s argument, this Court noted in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) at paragraph 39 that each of the considerations must be considered while deciding whether to issue bail[7].
Respondent
- The ASG brings up a point that we agree with: the aforementioned approach is unable to assist the accused in cases where they have not contributed in the investigation, appeared before the investigating officers, or responded to summonses and the Court determines that judicial custody of the accused is required to complete the trial, where additional investigation, including a potential recovery, is required.
- Learned ASG claims that a change was made to category C of section 45 of the PMLA and that it is now being considered by a separate Bench of this Court. That would be a subject for that Bench to address.
- Mr. Raju objected with Mr. Hariharan’s notion saying that such instructions wouldn’t be possible since the investigating officer may be corrupt in some circumstances and fail to apprehend the culprit.
RATIONALE
A division bench of the Supreme Court released a number of guidelines on July 11 about how to proceed while granting bail for certain offences covered as per the Criminal Procedure Code. The bench, which was made up of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sanjay KishanKaul, also advised the central government to take into account establishing a distinct law in the form of a bail act to simplify the process of granting bail. The bench noted that there are a lot of convicts awaiting trials in the nation’s jails.
The honourable court gave specific instructions. Both the courts and the investigative authorities are to follow these instructions. As a result, we believe it is reasonable to provide the following instructions, which the State may change.The investigative authorities and their officials have a responsibility to follow the directives given by this Court in Arnesh Kumar case[8], as well as Sections 41 and 41A of the Code[9]. The honourable court also told that the bail petitions should be resolved within two weeks unless the laws require differently, with an intervening application being the exception. With the exception of any intervening applications, anticipatory bail requests should be resolved within a six-week window.Following the advice of the ASG, which we’ve embraced, we have classified a different group of crimes as “economic Offences,” which are not subject to the special Acts.The Supreme Court has also classified the offences, and rules are being sought to be established for bail grant without restricting the authority of the relevant courts and bearing in mind the legislative restrictions.The offences have been divided into 4 categories by the court.
For each category, SC has established particular rules. Category A:
- The Court will send out a standard summons upon the submission of the charge sheet.
- If the person charged still doesn’t show up after that, a warrant will be issued for their physical presence.
- A non-bailable warrant will be issued if he still fails to show up.
- Ifthe defendant submits a petition before the non-bailable warrant is signed and declares he’ll show up in person for the subsequent hearing date, the Court may cancel the non-bailable warrant or convert it into a bailable warrant without requiring the accused’s physical presence.
- The court may decide on the accuser’s request for bail in their attendance without imprisoning him, or it may grant him temporary release while the request for bail is being reviewed[10].
Category B & D: The bail application will be considered on its basis if the offender shows up in court during any hearings. Category C: “The requirements are the same as in categories B and D, as well as compliance with certain bail arrangements made available by the Special Act.
DEFECTS
In its decision, the Supreme Court has reiterated the bail jurisprudence and also given some clarifications regarding the various categories of offences but there are some defects that are visible in the current case one which is the bail issues that can be resolved in a week’s time rather than giving two week time window to hear the bail matters and also in the case of anticipatory bailit could be resolved within four week time period rather than six week window.
INFERENCE
In the recent Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI decision, the Supreme Court clarified when bail should be granted in situations when the accused was not in custody at the time the charge sheet was filed. In certain cases, if a person is later jailed despite not being arrested during the inquiry merely because it is over, the judgement prevents needless harassment.
UDIT KUMAR, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY
[1]The leaflet, https://theleaflet.in/supreme-courts-guidelines-in-bail-matters-compliance-is-the-key/ (last visited on July 23, 2023)
[2] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 45, No. 15, Acts of parliament, 2003 (India)
[3]Nikesh Tarachand and Shah v. Union of India (2018), 11 SCC 1,
[4] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 19, No. 15, Act of parliament, 2003 (India)
[5] Indian kannon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7148380/ (last visted on July 23,2023)
[6] The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 § 88, No 2, Act of parliament, 1974 (India)
[7]Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012), 1 SCC 40
[8]Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar,(2014),8 SCC 273
[9]The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 § 41, No 2, Act of parliament, 1974 (India)
[10] Indian kannon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7148380/ (last visted on July 23,2023)