Judgment Intelligence
Other- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 11 July 2022
- Bench
- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 41, 41A, 60A, 87, 88, 167(2), 170, 204, 209, 309, 389, 436A, 437, 439, 440; Constitution of India — Article 21; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37
The Court issued directions: the Government of India may consider a separate Bail Act; States and Union Territories are to frame standing orders on Sections 41 and 41A; High Courts are to identify undertrials unable to meet bail conditions and act under Sections 440 and 436A; reports within four months (para 73). The applications were disposed of, to be listed for compliance after four months (paras 74-75).
Key holdings
- Courts must satisfy themselves of compliance with Sections 41 and 41A CrPC and the Arnesh Kumar directions; non-compliance entitles the accused to bail (paras 23, 26, 73).
- No bail application need be insisted upon when dealing with an accused under Sections 88, 170, 204 or 209 CrPC (paras 36, 73).
- Section 436A CrPC applies to special Acts absent a specific provision; the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not come in the way (para 64).
- Unexplained, prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision is a factor for bail, including when suspending a sentence (paras 41, 44).
- Bail applications should be disposed of within two weeks and anticipatory bail applications within six weeks (para 73).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1
Bail is the rule and jail the exception, on the touchstone of Article 21.
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40
Seriousness of the charge and severity of punishment both weigh in bail; relied on for bail principles and for economic offences.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
Sections 41 and 41A CrPC are facets of Article 21; its directions on arrest must be complied with in letter and spirit, and courts must check compliance.
View all precedents (11)
- Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1
Courts should issue summons first, then a bailable warrant, and a non-bailable warrant only if warranted.
- Siddharth v. State of U.P. (2021) 1 SCC 676
Section 170 CrPC does not require arrest of an accused not arrested during investigation when the charge sheet is filed; strict compliance directed.
- Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81
Bail bonds and sureties must not be fixed mechanically; release on personal bond and the reasonableness of security considered.
- Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015) 13 SCC 605
Directions for jurisdictional judicial officers to hold jail sittings to release undertrials entitled under Section 436A; to be complied with.
- Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713
Once a timely trial is not possible and the accused has suffered significant incarceration, courts would ordinarily be obliged to grant bail; cited for special Acts (category C).
- Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731
Undertrials under special Acts cannot be detained indefinitely pending trial; cited for special Acts (category C).
- P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791
Economic offences are not a class to be denied bail as such; gravity, the object of the special Act, the circumstances and the sentence are factors.
- Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427
Courts at every level must act as protectors of liberty and ensure that criminal law does not become a weapon for selective harassment.
