Two recent announcements, one by a judicial order and the other by a public speech by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), have drawn attention to the way the bail law operates in the country. While in the Supreme Court, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs CBI, Seeking to expand the scope of granting early bail to those arrested without sufficient cause, CJI, NV Ramana has asked the CJI, NV Ramana, personal liberty due to hasty arrest, obstacles in the way of release of suspects on bail and long imprisonment. has hurt. of those under trial. The expression of concern is a timely reminder to regimes that are using their police powers to crack down on critics, activists and those not politically aligned with them. However, there is an irony in the courts battling for personal liberty and lamenting indiscriminate arrests on the one hand but routinely denying bail or postponing bail hearings on the other. Nevertheless, the judgment is valuable in reiterating the key principles in favor of granting bail and laying down constructive guidelines for arrest. For example, the Bench has called for standing orders to comply with the principles of Arnesh Kumar (2014) on the basis of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which a police officer should have reasons to arrest an accused. is required to register and is expected to issue notices of appearance in cases involving offenses attracting a prison sentence of not less than seven years.
Other positive aspects of the judgment are: setting time limits for disposal of bail and anticipatory bail applications and underlining that arrests should be made only when there is a genuine need, or to prevent the accused from escaping justice or tampering with evidence. For. In an interesting contribution, the Bench has considered a separate ‘Bail Act’ on the lines of the one in the United Kingdom to streamline the bail process. It is indeed true that while the basics of bail law are well known, especially that bail is the rule, and denial is the exception, there are clear discrepancies as to who gets bail, who is denied it. And at what level is it given? A separate law may provide a common reference point, but whether it will end the country’s undeclared rule of, ‘Show me the man, and I’ll show you the law’, will ever fade away. The position of the magistrate also needs a change. Whenever someone is produced before them, magistrates seem conditional to authorize mechanical remand and to deny bail if the prosecutor opposes it. Therefore, it is indeed welcome that the court has made it clear that bail can be considered even without a formal application at the stage of appearing before the court, or when a person responds to a summons or warrant. More than the law, the police must first explicitly end the practice of arresting and then fishing for potential crime.