2020 Supreme(SC) 553

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
National Alliance for People’s Movements & Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 4116 of 2020
Decided on : 22-09-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grant of interim bail – Corona Pandemic – Provision for bail as otherwise provided in law in any case would be considered by competent courts if such right for bail is made out before competent court irrespective of pandemic or not.
(2) Corona Pandemic – Grant of interim bail – Cause for grievance may arise for an individual undertrial/convicted prisoner only if such person has been discriminated as against prisoner in same category for which benefit has been provided by categorisation made by HPC.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Grant of interim bail – Alleged discrimination – Entire right to claim such interim bail has arisen in unprecedented circumstance of pandemic and consideration for interim bail is not in nature of a statutory right for bail based on other legal consideration but is more in nature of human right to safeguard health – Provision for bail as otherwise provided in law in any case would be considered by competent courts if such right for bail is made out before competent court irrespective of pandemic or not – Present option provided is only as a solution to help decongestion and to avoid spread of virus – At the same time benefit granted in such circumstance cannot be to detriment of social order by releasing all categories of prisoners irrespective of categorisation to be made depending on severity of crime. (Para 9)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of interim bail – Apex Court had directed constitution of HPC consisting of a senior High Court Judge and highly placed officials so that an appropriate categorisation be made in each State dependent on circumstance arising therein – Intention of this Court was not that every undertrial or convicted prisoner is to be released irrespective of nature of offence or severity thereof – Consideration was for the purpose of decongesting prisons so that social distancing could be maintained to avoid spread of virus – In that circumstance consideration would certainly be different in each State/Union Territory depending on occupancy in prison, spread of virus, infrastructure available and need to release certain number of prisoners so as to decongest – Very purpose of directing each of States/Union Territories to constitute a High Powered Committee is that HPC taking note of subsisting position in such State will take a decision in the matter as HPC will have wherewithal to secure all details and take a decision – Committee has thought it fit to separately classify undertrials/convicted persons who are charged under Special Enactments irrespective of duration of imprisonment notwithstanding fact that punishment imposed could be less than 7 years – In that regard, what has weighed with HPC is that such enactments provide for additional restrictions on grant of bail in addition to those under Criminal Procedure Code – Categorisation cannot be considered as unreasonable since at first instance, based on categorisation made a consideration is required by Court for grant of interim bail if such undertrial/convicted person is seeking bail purely on taking benefit of notification issued pursuant to such decision taken by HPC – Exclusion made has a reasonable basis and cannot be termed arbitrary – Present methodology for grant of interim bail is with intention to avoid overcrowding in unprecedented circumstance and grant of bail in present circumstances is an additional benefit to such persons – What has been curtailed by HPC by excluding certain categories is only with a view to deny benefit to certain category of jail inmates who are charged with serious offences which has an adverse effect on society at large though length of punishment that can be imposed may be lesser – Such of those persons charged under special enactments or convicted for a period, more than 7 years in any event if they are not otherwise disentitled to bail in a normal circumstance could still seek for bail in accordance with law and cannot treat pandemic as fortuitous circumstance to secure bail to which they were otherwise not entitled to in law by claiming equal treatment – All that HPC has denied them is benefit of seeking interim bail only on the ground that they are entitled to be released on bail in view of Covid19 situation and no other legal right has been denied – In the circumstance where present consideration for bail is not provided under a Statute but is made available based on order passed by Apex Court and when a known criteria is formulated by HPC, which had all materials before it, interference with same in a petition of present nature in any event would not have arisen – High Court was accordingly justified in its conclusion. (Paras 9, 11 and 12)

(C) Corona Pandemic – Grant of interim bail – Cause for grievance may arise for an individual undertrial/convicted prisoner only if such person has been discriminated as against prisoner in same category for which benefit has been provided by categorisation made by HPC – Intention being to decongest prisons, as a first step release of prisoners based on impugned guidelines, held to be unflawed would be made – If, despite release of undertrial/convicted prisoners in categories presently made does not achieve purpose and fact that additional prisons are set up also does not suffice and in that context if any modification with regard to categories made by HPC is necessary; it would be open for HPC to take note of same and apply their mind to modify its guidelines in that regard – It would still be open for petitioners to obtain necessary statistics and if any modification of guidelines is necessary in future, they will be at liberty to submit an appropriate representation to HPC which would in that circumstance look into same and arrive at a conclusion at its discretion depending on need or otherwise to modify its guidelines – In that view, when such factual consideration to achieve object alone is necessary and HPC is constituted for the very purpose, interference in a judicial proceeding of present nature to alter criteria would not arise unless it is shown to be so arbitrary that no reasonable person can accept – But in circumstances where there is any individuous discrimination amongst prisoners in same category and similarly placed, it would be open for competent Court to examine the same to that limited extent when grievance is raised by person who is denied benefit if he/she is entitled to such benefit. (Paras 14 and 15)

Facts of the case:

Petitioners herein were before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay claiming to be in Public Interest (PILCJLDVC No.44/2020) seeking that the decision of the High Powered Committee (HPC) dated 25.03.2020 to the extent of Clauses (iii), (iv) and (vii) of paragraph 8, decisions/minutes of HPC meeting dated 11.05.2020 excluding certain categories of offences provided in paragraph 5(i) and 5(ii) for the purpose of grant of interim bail and corrigendum dated 18.05.2020 of the Minutes of the Meeting of HPC dated 11.05.2020 to the extent of clarification that the class and/or category of offences determined by the HPC for temporary release be not read as a direction made by it for mandatory release of prisoners falling in that category or class and a further clarification that the case of every prisoner be considered on case to case basis for deciding the temporary release of such prisoners. The petitioners had also sought for a direction to the respondents to release the prisoners convicted for life imprisonment without insisting that they have been released in the past at least twice, either on furlough or parole. High Court on making a detailed consideration has arrived at the conclusion that the decision of the HPC does not call for interference except to the extent of the observations that were made in paragraph 36 of the order. The petitioners, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved are before this Court in this petition.

Findings of Court:

Keeping in perspective the object with which the interim bail was ordered to be considered for the purpose of avoiding overcrowding, the High Court has taken note of the factual position that as on 24.07.2020, as per details furnished, 10338 prisoners were released on interim bail/parole and presently 26,279 prisoners are in prison. Since it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the official capacity is only 23,217, the State Government had indicated that temporary prisons have been set up in 36 locations and about 2597 prisoners are occupying the same as of now and more will be shifted to avoid overcrowding in the existing prisons, which indicates that appropriate steps are being taken to achieve the object.

Result : Petition dismissed.