INTRODUCTION
A stringent course of action curtails the liberty of a person, Arrest is no way exception to that. The notion of Bail is the quintessence of this case. The case was approached to the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition. One of the spotlit in this case was the Guidelines issued for Investigation team and the Courts. The Judiciary’s slant towards the governing ethics of bail is reflected in this case. The rights of the accused is also highlighted. 76% of Indian prison inmates are undertrials.The Court mentioned and observed and put special emphasis on the under trial persons bail inadequacy.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Initial proceedings started where in a case investigated by CBI, Satender kumar Antil was accused under section 120-B of IPC and Secction-7 of Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding bribe during course of his employment. During the investigation process he was not arrested and a chargesheet was filed, by taking the chargesheet on record the court issued summons to Antil to appear in the court. He did not appeared in the court rather he applied for anticipatory bail which was further rejected and the court issued a non-bailable warrant. He argued that in Uttar Pradesh the procedure is that in a CBI case if the accused is not arrested during the investigation and by filing a chargesheet they are habitually taken into custody. To circumvent the situation he applied for anticipatory bail. However, it was not accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in order to elucidate it categorized offences and issued guidelines for those cases where no arrest was made during the investigation and the person cooperated, including appearing in court when required. These guidelines were divided into three divisions known as the “Anti Trilogy”. The case comment includes Supreme Court decisions and summarizes the current legal positions based on these rulings:
- Satender Kumar Antil v CBI (2021) 10 SCC 773, dated 07.10.2021 (‘Antil-1’)
- Satender Kumar Antil v CBI 2021 SCC Online SC 3302, dated 16.12.2021 (‘Antil-2’)
- Satender Kumar Antil v CBI 2022 SCC Online SC 825, dated 11.07.2022 (‘Antil-3’)
ISSUE
Is denying bail is against the fundamental right to liberty?
Whether the bail decisions are inconsistent?
Is it valid to arrest a person unreasonably during an inquiry or before or after filing of the chargesheet?
The issue of procuring the appearance (of an accused who is never arrested during investigation)
CONTENTION
CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS.
After filing of the chargesheet against him, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail. As he was summoned but not appeared in the court, his bail was rejected and the court issued a non-bailable warrant. The petitioner council spotlight the issue referred in the case, Nikesh Tarach and Shah vs Union of India, regarding the inconsistencies in the classification of offenses into four group A,B,C and D. the list of High Courts which is not adhering the norms of bail mentioned by Supreme Court was also submitted by the Petitioner Council. Along with , the matter of under trial prisoners which constitute a huge proportion in prison who are not able conform with bail due to either because of their poverty or illiteracy.
CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS.
The respondents was also in favour of classifying offences and issuing guidelines in order to grant bail which needs to be more consistent with statutory provisions and without hampering the discretion of the courts.The suggestions made by the respondent to classify a discrete set of offences as “economic offences” explicitly which is not dealt under any provisions. It also mentioned that if not making economic offences as a distinct set but to arrange a culminated set of offences which includes seriousness of the charge and the depth of punishment.
RATIONALE
In an arrest , the liberty of a person is curtailed . If it is done in a draconian manner then it is infringement to the accused right. The accused also posses some rights. The method of detaining the accused even after cooperating with the officials and not doing during the inquiry was not encouraged by the Apex Court. The cases of Mahdoom Bava vs. CBI , Own Motion vs. CBI were forefront in violation of rights of an accused. Article 21 which ensures all persons have the right to life and personal liberty, and it applies to the accused also. The interpretation of section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made by Supreme Court in Siddharth vs. State of UP that to not to make arrest if accused custody is not necessary for the prosecution.
DEFECTS OF LAW
It highlighted the list of High Courts which is not adhering the norms of bail mentioned by Supreme Court. It questioned the inconsistencies in bail procedure.
JUDGEMENT
Satender Kumar Antil v CBI (2021) 10 SCC 773, dated 07.10.2021 (‘Antil-1’) decisions:
The Supreme Court issued specific guidelines for granting bail to accused who were not arrested during investigation. The requirements for rules that the accused
- During investigation the accused should not be arrested.
- During the whole investigation the accused should co-operate
The classification of offenses into four group A,B,C and D :-
A category :- A category deals with Punishable offences with seven years of imprisonment or excluding those in categories B and D.
In this group, first, the court issue summons and allow appearance with a lawyer. In situation of non-appearance of the accused after issuing summons, court can issue a bailable warrant. Again the accused does not appear, court can issue a non-bailable warrant. If the accused promises to appear on the next date of hearing , the non bailable warrant can be either cancelled or converted to summons or bailable warrent. Bail applications must be decided without taking the accused into custody or by granting interim bail until the final decision of the bail application.
B Category:- B category handles with Capital Offences, life imprisonment, imprisonment for more than seven years. In this on merit basis the bail application has to be decided when the accused appears.
C Category:- this category mentions Punishable offences under Specific Acts with stern bail provisions .Guidelines of B and D are applicable along with extra condition to adhere with provisions of bail under NDPS, PMLA, POSCO etc.
D Category:- The last category includes those offences which not mentioned under Special Acts as “Economic Offences” In this on merit basis the bail application has to be decided when the accused appears.
Satender Kumar Antil v CBI 2021 SCC Online SC 3302, dated 16.12.2021 (‘Antil-2’) decisions:
Later after two months, Supreme Court Issued Antil-2 decision which clarified the Antil-1 order .Antil 1 order was not issued to enforce extra limitations. It was made to liberate the procedure of bail.The mere filing of a chargesheet, without any grounds for prior arrest during the investigation, should not automatically lead to the arrest of the accused, as clarified earlier in the Siddharth v State of UP (2022) 1 SCC 676 case.
Satender Kumar Antil v CBI 2022 SCC Online SC 825, dated 11.07.2022 (‘Antil 3) decisions:
The court dealt with previous rulings on section 41, 41A , 60A of CrPC , warrant issue, section 87 and 88, section 436A . It dealt with jurisprudence of bail provisions .
The court reaffirmed to the ruling made in Siddharth v. State of UP , regarding the prosecution of the accused individuals under section 170 of CrPC. Court also highlighted that courts can depend on section 88 to make sure that during trial the accused is present. The Court mentioned that the decision regarding bail matters should be dealt within 14days and regarding anticipatory bail the time period is within six weeks. Court in its decision held that, for A and B set offences, general principles of bail shall apply. For C offences postponement should be avoided and stringent provisions of bail shall not be applied. In offences under group D , court was against denying bail just because of the economic nature of the offence. While deciding the bail cases, Court should be careful and not rushed said by the Apex Court.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
The interpretation of section 170 of CrPC was explained. Court stated that It is not required to arrest and produce the accused in custody along with police report by an investigating officer unless deemed necessary. It highlighted the fundamental right of personal liberty . Supreme Court based on the principles overruled the decision of High Court and the accused was granted anticipatory bail.
Own Motion v. CBI
The High Court of Delhi, held that if the accused during investigation is not arrested should be granted bail. Court highlighted that there is no meaning in denying a person bail who has been at liberty for quite a few years and even during investigation who has not been arrested.
CONCLUSION
This case is landmark due to Supreme Court’s Anti Trilogy Judgements. It widened the judicial panorama of Bail and the guiding principles in India. In it’s judgement it explicitly mentioned the non-exclusion of offences which is economic in nature while deciding bail cases. The undertrials must be given importance and should give speedy justice. The rule of “The rule is Bail and the Exception is Jail” is not in practice and prison are flooded with undertrials and the system of bail in India must be improved.
AUTHOR: Aiswini R Pillai, student of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida