SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
351
   [2022] 10 S.C.R. 351
351
SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
(Miscellaneous Application No.1849 of 2021)
JULY 11, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Bail – Grant of – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 41,
41A, 88, 170, 204 and 209 – Constitution of India – Arts. 21 & 22
– Applications have been filed seeking certain directions/
clarifications, to deal with the aspects governing the grant of bail –
Held: The Government of India may consider the introduction of a
separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline
the grant of bail – While considering the application for enlargement
on bail, Courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due compliance
of sec. 41 of CrPC – Any non-compliance would entitle the accused
to a grant of bail – Section 41 and 41A are facets of Article 21 of
the Constitution – The directions of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
ought to be complied with in letter and spirit by the investigating
and prosecuting agencies – While the view expressed by the Supreme
Court on the non-compliance of Section 41 and the consequences
that flow from it has to be kept in mind by the Court, which is
expected to be reflected in the orders – To take care of not only the
unwarranted arrests, but also the clogging of bail applications
before various Courts, all the State Governments and the Union
Territories directed to facilitate standing orders, to comply with the
mandate of Section 41A – There need not be any insistence of a
bail application while considering the application u/ss. 88, 170,
204 and 209 of the Code.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Special Courts –
Constitution of – The State and Central Governments will have to
comply with the directions issued by Supreme Court from time to
time with respect to constitution of special courts – The High Court
in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake
an exercise on the need for the special courts – The vacancies in
the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to
be filled up expeditiously.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 436A, 440 –
Undertrial Prisoners – The statistics placed before the Court
indicated that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute
undertrial prisoners – Of this category of prisoners, majority may
not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a
cognizable offense, being charged with offenses punishable for
seven years or less – The High Courts are directed to undertake the
exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to
comply with the bail conditions – After doing so, appropriate action
will have to be taken in light of sec. 440, facilitating the release –
While insisting upon sureties the mandate of sec. 440 of the Code
has to be kept in mind – An exercise will have to be done in a
similar manner to comply with the mandate of sec. 436A both at the
district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by
this Court in Bhim Singh, followed by appropriate orders.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Bail Application –
Disposal of – Timeframe – Bail applications ought to be disposed
of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate
otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application –
Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of
within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening
application.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sec. 167(2) – Object
and presumption under – It has got a laudable object behind it,
which is to ensure an expeditious investigation and a fair trial, and
to set down a rationalised procedure that protects the interests of
the indigent sections of society – This is also another limb of Art. 21
– Presumption of innocence is also inbuilt in this provision – The
right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, inuring to the
benefit of suspect – A duty is enjoined upon the agency to complete
the investigation within the time prescribed and a failure would enable
the release of the accused – Such a right cannot be taken away
even during any unforeseen circumstances – As a consequence of
the right flowing from Sec.167(2), courts will have to give due effect
to it, and thus any detention beyond this period would certainly be
illegal, being an affront to the liberty of the person concerned –
Therefore, it is not only 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.