oppn parties Supreme Court's 2022 Order On Bail Not Being Followed By Trial Courts

News Snippets

  • For the first time ever, Mukesh Ambani buys a 29% stake in Gautam Adani's Mahan Energen, a subsidiary of Adani Power to source 500MW of electricity from the company's power plant in MP
  • Stocks continue to rise on Thursday - Sensex gains 639 points to 73635 and Nifty 203 points to 22326
  • Golf - Indian Open: 3 Indians at tied 14th as Joost Luiten takes the lead with a wonderful 7-under 65
  • IPL: RR beat DC by 12 runs as Riyan Parag (84 off just 45 balls) shines
  • SP drops two candidates owing allegiance to Azam Khan from Rampur and Moradabad
  • In Assam, a controversy erupted after a picture of UPPL leader Benjamin Basumatary, lying on a stack of Rs 500 notes circulated on social media. UPPL is an ally of the BJP
  • AAP's Jalandhar-West MP Sushil Kumar Rinku joins the BJP. He was the only AAP Lok Sabha MP
  • Supreme Court dismisses Centre's plea to review its 2023 verdict in the PMLA case
  • Close save for passengers as they remain unhurt after the wings of two planes graze at Kolkata airport. Pilots derostered and inquiry ordered by DGCA
  • Bengal BJP leader Dilip Ghosh gets notice from the EC as well as the BJP for making ugly remarks about Mamata Banerjee's parentage
  • Sadanand Vasanth Date, who faught terrorists in the 26/11 attack and was awarded the Preisent's Police medal, has been appointed the head of the NIA
  • Centre will borrow Rs 7.5L cr in the first six months of FY25, nearly 50% of the target for the full year
  • 25 stocks, including SBI, will see same day trade settlements from today in the world's fastest settlement mode in both BSE and NSE
  • Stocks recover smartly on Wednesday: Sensex rises 526 points to 72996 and Nifty 118 points to 22123
  • Tennis: Rohan Bopanna-Matthew Ebden reached the semifinals of the Miami Open
Delhi Lt Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena says government cannot be run from jail, hints at President's Rule in the capital ////// In a dangerous incident, the wings of two planes grazed while taxiing on the runway at Kolkata airport, all passengers were safe but DGCA ordered an inquiry and the pilots were derostered
oppn parties
Supreme Court's 2022 Order On Bail Not Being Followed By Trial Courts

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2023-03-22 08:12:08

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

The Supreme Court is furious and it should be. Trial courts all over the country, public prosecutors and investigating agencies are not following its July 2022 order which mandated that courts be liberal and grant bail where custody was not needed. This was to be specifically adhered to in cases which the law prescribed a punishment of less than seven years in jail for the alleged crime. The apex court had also held that if the accused has not been arrested during the probe and was cooperating in the investigation, there was no need to arrest him on filing of the chargesheet.

The attention of the apex court was drawn to the fact that many trial courts in UP passed orders that were in gross violation of its 2022 order. It was also informed that prosecuting agencies and public prosecutors also took a stand that was contrary to the 2022 order. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar was furious and said that these trial court judges needed to be sent to academies for "upgrading their knowledge". It also said that it would be constrained to haul up public prosecutors and investigating agencies if they took such contrary stand.

The 2022 guidelines of the Supreme Court were comprehensive. They categorised offences under four heads and "offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D" (where category B was  for offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 year and category D was for economic offences not covered by Special Acts) was under the head A. This was treated with lesser gravity. In such cases, the Supreme Court had directed that after filing of the chargesheet, ordinary summons must be issued at the first instance where the party could even be represented by a lawyer. If the accused or his/her lawyer do not appear despite service of summons, then a bailable warrant for physical appearance may be issued. Again, if the accused fails to appear despite issuance of bailable warrant, a non-bailable warrant will be issued. Even such non-bailable warrant may be converted by the Magistrate into a bailable warrant/summons without insisting on physical appearance of the accused, if the accused moved an application before execution of the non-bailable warrant on an undertaking to appear physically on the next date of hearing. Once the accused appeared in Court, bail applications may be decided without taking such accused into custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided. This clearly showed that the Supreme Court wanted arrest to be the last resort and trial court judges were expected to be liberal in granting bail in such cases. It also showed that the apex court wanted public prosecutors and investigating agencies not to insist on arresting the accused in such cases or place hurdles in the bail process.

But the ground reality is completely different, as the Supreme Court found out and which led to its anger. The apex court said that trial courts were passing detention orders in a mechanical way and denying bail in violation of the Supreme Court's 2022 order. This denies liberty to the accused and turns the principle 'bail is rule, jail is an exception', as laid down by the apex court in the landmark judgment of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliya in 1978 and reaffirmed in many orders thereafter, on its head.

The Supreme Court must initiate the process through which trial court judges are periodically required to update their knowledge, especially regarding Supreme Court judgments. It should also carry out its threat to haul up public prosecutors and investigating agencies for going against Supreme Court orders in such cases.