Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 154

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Sundresh, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
Satender Kumar Antil - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation And Anr. - Respondents
MA No. 2034 of 2022 In MA No. 1849 of 2021 In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 With MA No. 2035 of 2022 In Slp (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021
Decided On : 13-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akbar Siddique, AOR Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Singhal, Adv. Mr. Udbhav Sinha, Adv. Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Parv K Garg, Adv. Mr. Parwez Akhtar, Adv. Mr. Animesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Javed Muzaffar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. (N.P.) Mrs. Aishwariya Bahti, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Vineet Singh, Adv. Ms. Sairica S Raju, Adv. Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Mohd Akhil, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Tacho Eru, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Anil Hooda, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Swathi H. Prasad, Adv. Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mrs. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, AOR Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Mr. A. Renganath, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Barua, Adv. Ms. Aparna Singh, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshit Goel, Adv. Mr. K.V. Vibu Prasad, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Shishir Kumar Saxena, Adv. Mr. R.n. Pareek, Adv. Mr. Baij Nath Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankur Parihar, Adv. Mr. Jagmohan Pareek, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Mohd. Ashaab, Adv. Mr. Ankur Prakash, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Amod Kumar Bidhuri, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Ankita Choudhary, A.A.G. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Kshitiz Singh, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Amit Gupta, AOR Mr. Shiv Verma, Adv. Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Jain, AOR Ms. Bhavya Golecha, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Nisha Pandey, Adv. Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. Ravi Sagar, Adv. Mr. James P. Thomas, Adv. Mr. Remish Lakra, Adv. Mr. Hira Lal, Adv. Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, AOR Mrs. Swati Vaibhav, Adv. Mrs. Shruti Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Abraham Mathew, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Prakash Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Ravichandra Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Adv. Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Adv. Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv. Ms. Zinnea Mehta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Kv Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Meeran Maqbool, Adv. Ms. Archita Nigam, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Mr. Honey Khanna, Adv. Mr. Yashvaradhan, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Mr. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Aman Panwar, Adv. Mr. Akash Panwar, Adv. Mr. Shivam Singh Baghel, Adv. Mr. Mudit Gupta, AOR Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, AAG/Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Ms. Jyoti Babbar, Adv. Mr. Ranjeeb Kamal Bora, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R. AOR Mr. Ashish Batra, AOR Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail for non-compliance of mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C., 1973. – Directions contained in Paras 100.2, 100.4, 100.7 of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and also directions to Public Prosecutors in terms of order dated 21.03.2023 of Supreme Court need top most attention and are required to be complied with by States, Union Territories and CBI as per time schedule stipulated.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 41, 41-A and 389 – Grant of bail – Non-compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A – Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedure for implementation of Scheme for support to poor prisoners: –
i) Funds to States/UTs will be provided through Central Nodal Agency (CNA). National Crime Records Bureau has been designated as CNA for this scheme.
ii) States/UTs will draw requisite amount from CNA on case-to-case basis and reimburse same to concerned competent authority (Court) for providing relief to prisoner.
iii) An 'Empowered Committee' may be constituted in each District of the State/UT, comprising of (i) District Collector (DC)/District Magistrate (DM), (ii) Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, (iii) Superintendent of Police, (iv) Superintendent/ Dy. Supdt. of concerned Prison and (v) Judge incharge of concerned Prison, as nominee of District Judge.
Note : This Empowered Committee will assess requirement of financial support in each case for securing bail or for payment of fine, etc. and based on decision taken, DC/DM will draw money from the CNA account and take necessary action.
Note : Committee may appoint a Nodal Officer and take assistance of any civil society representative/social worker/ District Probation Officer to assist them in processing cases of needy prisoners.
iv) An Oversight Committee may be constituted at State Government level, comprising of (i) Principal Secretary (Home/Jail), (ii) Secretary (Law Deptt), (iii) Secretary, State Legal Services Authority,
iv) DG/IG (Prisons) and (v) Registrar General of High Court.
Note : Composition of State level 'Empowered Committee' and 'Oversight Committee' are suggestive in nature. Prisons/persons detained therein being 'State-List" subject, it is proposed that Committees may be constituted and notified by concerned State Governments/UT Administrations.
Standard Operating Procedure for undertrial prisoners
1. If undertrial prisoner is not released from jail within a period of 7 days of order of grant of bail, then jail authority would inform Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (DLSA).
2. Secretary, DLSA would inquire and examine whether undertrial prisoner is not in a position to furnish financial surety for securing bail in terms of bail conditions. For this, DLSA may take assistance of Civil Society representatives, social workers/ NGOs, District Probation officers or revenue officer. This exercise would be completed in a time bound manner within a period of 10 days.
3. Secretary, DLSA will place all such cases before District Level Empowered Committee every 2-3 weeks.
4. After examination of such cases, if Empowered Committee recommends that identified poor prisoner be extended benefit of financial benefit under 'Support to poor prisoners Scheme", then requisite amount upto Rs. 40,000/- per case for one prisoner, can be drawn and made available to Court by way of Fixed Deposit or any other method, which District Committee feels appropriate.
5. This benefit will not be available to persons who are accused of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, NDPS or Unlawful Activities Prevention Act or any other Act or provisions, as may be specified later.
6. If prisoner is acquitted/convicted, then appropriate orders may be passed by trial Court so that money comes back to Government's account as this is only for the purposes of securing bail unless accused is entitled to benefit of bail U/s. 389 (3) Cr.P.C. in which event amount can be utilised for bail by Trial Court to enable accused to approach the Appellate Court and also if Appellate Court grants bail U/s. 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.
7. If bail amount is higher than Rs. 40,000/-, Secretary, DLSA may exercise discretion to pay such amount and make a recommendation to the Empowered Committee. Secretary, DLSA may also engage with legal aid advocate with a plea to have the surety amount reduced. For any amount over and above Rs. 40,000/-, proposal may be approved by State level Oversight Committee.
Convicted Prisoners
1. If a convicted person is unable to get released from jail on account of non-payment of fine amount, Superintendent of Jail would immediately inform Secretary, DLSA (Time bound manner: 7 days).
2. Secretary, DLSA would enquire into financial condition of prisoner with help of District Social Worker, NGOs, District Probation Officer, Revenue Officer who would be mandated to cooperate with the Secretary, DLSA. (Time bound manner: 7 days)
3. Empowered Committee will sanction release of fine amount upto Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in Court for securing release of prisoner. For any amount over and above Rs. 25,000/-, the proposal may be approved by the State level Oversight Committee. (Para 39(I))
Facts of the case:
Matter concerning comprehensive implementation of directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, in matters concerning grant of bail for non-compliance of mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C., 1973.
Findings of Court:
Amicus has suggested for creating a dedicated email id for the purpose of these proceedings pending before Court so that reports are saved or exchanged simultaneously. Considering convenience of all parties present here, we accept suggestion so made and accordingly give liberty to Amicus to create the email id, and circulate the same to all the counsel/parties. Email id shall be used hereafter for serving and receiving affidavits / reports.
Result : Directions issued.

ORDER :

A. Heard learned Amicus, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate Mr. Gaurav Agarwal for National Legal Services Authority (hereinafter referred to as “NALSA”) and Additional Solicitor General of India, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati for the Union.

B. We have perused the compliance affidavits filed by the respective States, Union Territories, Central Bureau of Investigation and NALSA on the directions issued by this Court in the Judgment reported in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and the periodical orders passed therein. The learned Amicus having gone through these compliance affidavits in great detail has submitted a tabular chart and report dated 10.02.2024 indicating the directions that have been complied with by the parties present before us in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) case.

C. For the comprehensive implementation of the directions in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) case, the Amicus upon thorough study and verification of the details forcefully argues that certain directions fall within the domain of States/Union Territories/CBI, and High Courts and a few directions fall within the domain of both the States and the High Courts. Therefore, for effective monitoring by this Court it is completely desirable to combine the stake holders for reporting in a convenient way and are heard on a particular day.

D. The directions contained in para 100.2, 100.4, 100.7 of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) and also the directions to public prosecutors in terms of order dated 21.03.2023 of this Court need top most attention and are required to be complied with by States, Union Territories and CBI as per the time schedule stipulated.

E. So far as the directions in para 100.2, 100.3, 100.5, 100.6, 100.7, 100.8, 100.9, 100.10, 100.11 of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra); the direction dated 03.02.2023 for inclusion of the judgment in Siddharth v. State of UP, (2022) 1 SCC 676 and Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) in the curriculum of judicial academies and the direction dated 21.03.2023 for application of the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) to Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), by and large apply to High Courts. From a larger perspective, direction in a few paragraphs is complied with by both i.e. the States/Union Territories and High Courts, in consultation with each other. The suggestion of Amicus informs that directions individually obligated are carried out independently and where mutual consultation in complying with the directions is necessary, such consultation is undertaken and responsibility is fixed on one authority for due compliance.

F. The report dated 10.02.2024 is accepted by us in its entirety and therefore, now we issue directions for due compliance by the States/Union Territories/CBI and High Courts. For the sake of convenience, the directions to various States and Union Territories are issued and we wish to verify and deal with the compliance in the manner suggested by this Order.

1. State of Andhra Pradesh -Directions to be complied with:

(i) In terms of the direction contained in para 100.2, it is directed to provide the particulars of First Information Reports of cognizable and non-bailable cases in which the mandate of Sections 41, 41-A of CrPC and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273 has not been followed and consequently to provide the details of necessary actions that have been taken against erring police officers. Also, in terms of direction contained in para 100.2, information has to be provided as to whether the Standing Order is being complied with by Investigating Officers.

(ii) In terms of direction contained in para 100.7, it is directed that the State shall provide details of Special Courts constituted and the necessary steps taken for creation of Additional Special Courts and its stage.

(iii) Compliance with order dated 21.03.2023 passed by this Court: