Supreme Court Directs States and High Courts on Implementation of Bail Guidelines: Satender Kumar Antil Case (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 134

Judges: M.M. Sundresh J, S.V.N. Bhatti J.

Can the Supreme Court ensure its directions on arrest and bail are followed across India? The Supreme Court, in this order, seeks to ensure that its previous directions in the Satender Kumar Antil case regarding arrest and bail procedures are being implemented by various states, union territories, and high courts. This order addresses the compliance of the previous directions and issues further directives to ensure proper implementation. The bench comprised Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti.

Case Background

The Supreme Court is monitoring the implementation of its judgment in *Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51*, and subsequent orders. Various states, union territories, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) have filed compliance affidavits detailing the steps they have taken to adhere to the Court’s directions. The Court has appointed an Amicus Curiae to review these affidavits and provide a report.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Amicus Curiae, after reviewing the compliance affidavits, noted that some directions fall under the purview of states, union territories, and the CBI, while others are the responsibility of the High Courts. Some directions require mutual consultation between these bodies. The Court accepted the Amicus’s report and issued further directions for compliance. The Court decided to monitor the compliance in a phased manner, starting with the states and High Courts from serial numbers 1 to 10.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several key legal provisions and previous judgments:

• Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with when police may arrest without a warrant.
• Section 41-A of the CrPC: This section outlines the procedure for issuing a notice of appearance before a police officer.
• Section 88 of the CrPC: This section pertains to the power to take a bond for appearance.
• Section 438 of the CrPC: This section deals with the direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
• Section 440 of the CrPC: This section deals with the amount of bond and reduction thereof.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273: This case provides guidelines on arrests to prevent unnecessary detentions.
• Siddharth v. State of UP, (2022) 1 SCC 676: This case is to be included in the curriculum of judicial academies.
• Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51: The primary judgment being monitored for compliance.

Arguments

The Amicus Curiae argued that:

• Certain directions from the *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)* case are primarily the responsibility of states, union territories, and the CBI.
• Other directions fall within the domain of the High Courts.
• Some directions require mutual consultation between states/UTs and High Courts.
• For effective monitoring, it is essential to combine stakeholders for reporting and hearings.
• Specific directions related to Sections 41 and 41-A of the CrPC, and the creation of Special Courts, require immediate attention.

The Amicus Curiae emphasized the need for clear allocation of responsibilities to ensure effective compliance with the Court’s directions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this order. Instead, it focused on the implementation of its previous directions in *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)*. The primary concern was to ensure that the states, union territories, and High Courts were adhering to the guidelines set forth by the Court in the previous judgment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court dealt with the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court issued specific directions to various states, union territories, and High Courts. These directions are aimed at ensuring compliance with the guidelines laid down in *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)* and other related judgments. The Court also accepted a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for supporting poor prisoners.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The directions in *Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51* were to be implemented by States, UTs and High Courts.
• The guidelines in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273* were to be followed by police officers while making arrests.
• The judgment in *Siddharth v. State of UP, (2022) 1 SCC 676* was to be included in the curriculum of judicial academies.
• The provisions of Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC were to be followed by police officers while making arrests.
• The provisions of Section 88 of the CrPC were to be followed by Courts while taking bonds.
• The provisions of Section 438 of the CrPC were to be considered in light of the directions in *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)*.
• The provisions of Section 440 of the CrPC were to be considered by Courts while dealing with bail amounts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s primary concern was ensuring the effective implementation of its previous directions to protect the rights of undertrial prisoners and ensure proper legal procedures are followed. The Court emphasized the need for:

• Strict adherence to the guidelines in *Arnesh Kumar (Supra)* and Sections 41 and 41-A of the CrPC to prevent unnecessary arrests.
• Proper constitution and functioning of Special Courts to expedite trials.
• Training of public prosecutors to ensure they are aware of the correct legal position as per *Siddharth (Supra)* and *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)*.
• Inclusion of relevant judgments in the curriculum of judicial academies to educate judicial officers.
• Addressing the issues of undertrial prisoners who are unable to secure bail due to financial constraints.

The Court’s sentiment was strongly focused on ensuring that the rights of undertrial prisoners are protected, and that the directions issued by the Court are followed uniformly across the country.

Key Takeaways

• States and Union Territories: Must ensure compliance with Sections 41 and 41-A of the CrPC and the guidelines in *Arnesh Kumar (Supra)*, provide details of Special Courts, and train prosecutors.
• High Courts: Must ensure compliance with bail procedures, provide details on Special Courts, address issues of prisoners unable to furnish sureties, include relevant judgments in judicial academy curriculum, and apply the principles of *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)* to anticipatory bail petitions.
• Union of India: Must inform the Court about any contemplated Bail Law, assess the need for additional Special Courts (CBI), and ensure investigative agencies follow Court directions.
• CBI: Must comply with Sections 41 and 41-A of the CrPC, train prosecutors, and circulate relevant judgments.
• NALSA: Must provide updated information on undertrial prisoners and follow-up actions taken by State Legal Services Authorities.
• Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): The SOP for supporting poor prisoners is to be implemented to provide financial assistance for bail and fines.

The judgment emphasizes the need for a coordinated effort to ensure the protection of undertrial prisoners’ rights and the proper implementation of legal procedures.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued detailed directions to each state, union territory, and High Court, specifying the actions they must take to comply with the order. These directions include:

• Providing particulars of First Information Reports (FIRs) where Sections 41 and 41-A of the CrPC and *Arnesh Kumar (Supra)* guidelines were not followed.
• Providing details of Special Courts constituted and steps taken for creating additional courts.
• Ensuring prosecutors state the correct legal position as per *Siddharth (Supra)* and *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)*.
• Circulating the judgments in *Siddharth (Supra)* and *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)* to prosecutors.
• Training and updating prosecutors periodically.
• Ensuring compliance with directions regarding bail applications and conditions.
• Identifying prisoners unable to comply with bail conditions and taking steps to alleviate their situation.
• Including *Siddharth (Supra)* and *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)* in the curriculum of judicial academies.
• Applying the principles of *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)* to petitions under Section 438 of the CrPC.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court is monitoring the compliance of its previous directions in the *Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)* case. This order does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the importance of adhering to legal procedures and protecting the rights of undertrial prisoners. It also emphasizes the need for coordinated efforts by various stakeholders to ensure that the directions of the Supreme Court are implemented effectively.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order is a significant step towards ensuring that its directions on arrest and bail procedures are implemented effectively across India. By assigning clear responsibilities to states, union territories, High Courts, and other authorities, the Court aims to protect the rights of undertrial prisoners and ensure that legal procedures are followed uniformly. The acceptance of the SOP for supporting poor prisoners further demonstrates the Court’s commitment to addressing the financial constraints faced by many undertrial prisoners.