BA[I]LED: Keeping The Liberty Intact!

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.1 once again and in no uncertain terms emphasised the bail jurisprudence and the significance of personal liberty. The principles evolved by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) took into consideration a series of precedents prevailing on the subject while endorsing the view taken by it in its earlier judgments being - Amanpreet Singh v CBI2, Siddharth v. State of U.P.3, etc.

One of the crucial aspects decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case related to the principles to be applied for release on bail/bond of an accused person who joined but was not consciously arrested by the investigating agency during the course of the investigation. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that such an accused person would not be required to be taken in custody and upon their appearance before the Trial Court and could be released by executing a bond in terms of Section 88 Cr.P.C. without there being any necessity of even filing a bail application. The concept of constructive custody of the Court was relied upon for this purpose.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also dealt with the Role of the Court with regard to personal liberty and held “Criminal courts in general with the trial court in particular are the guardian angels of liberty. Liberty, as embedded in the Code, has to be preserved, protected, and enforced by the criminal courts. Any conscious failure by the criminal courts would constitute an affront to liberty. It is the pious duty of the criminal court to zealously guard and keep a consistent vision in safeguarding the constitutional values and ethos. A criminal court must uphold the constitutional thrust with responsibility mandated on them by acting akin to a high priest.”

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that there needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down by it.

In order to ensure that an impact is made on bail jurisprudence and the menace of over crowding of under-trails in jails is taken care of, the Apex Court passed directions in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in, inter alia, Satender Kumar Antil (supra) case “should be incorporated as part of the curriculum of the State Judicial Academies and the National Judicial Academy.”4

However, despite such clear and unambiguous directions, the Trial Courts of certain states (especially the State of U.P) had been uniformly adopting a practice of taking an accused person into custody who was not arrested [consciously] by the investigative agency during the course of investigation and had co-operated with the investigation.

Aggrieved by such discrimination, some of the accused persons were constrained to knock doors of the Apex Court to bring to its notice the gross breach and non-compliance with the directives issued by it.

On 21.03.2023, the Amicus Curia and the Counsels appearing for the accused persons produced a series of orders (especially in the Districts of Hathras, Ghaziabad and Lucknow) where the Trial Courts were in ignorance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

A displeased Apex Court observed that if magistrates are passing such orders in derogation of the law laid down in the said judgment, they may be required to be sent to judicial academies for upgradation of their skills for some time.

The Apex further relying on its judgment noted that it is not only a duty of the court but also of the public prosecutors to plead correct legal position before the court as officers of the court. Lastly, the Apex Court was further pleased to clarify that the dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgements will apply on Applications seeking Anticipatory Bail also.

1. (2022) 10 SCC 51]

2. 2021 SCC Online SC 941

3. (2022) 1 SCC 676

4. Order dated 03.02.2023 passed by Supreme Court in MA No.2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021