Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

Uniform Bail Act Must Be Initiated At The Earliest

Posted in: Criminal Law
Tue, Jun 8, 21, 17:21, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 3670
Let me at the very outset begin by voicing my utmost indignation at the discriminatory manner in which bails are given with poor being at the receiving end almost

Let me at the very outset begin by voicing my utmost indignation at the discriminatory manner in which bails are given with poor being at the receiving end almost in all the cases barring a few notable exceptions. This has to change now. The earlier this is done, the better it shall be in the long term interest of millions and millions of poor people who for many years languish in jail just because they don't have the push and pull to obtain the necessary money and other things required to obtain bail.

It is only the rich and influential who face no difficulty or just a few hassles in obtaining bail as they can arrange for money, surety etc at the drop of a hat. Why this raw discrimination between the rich and the poor? Under no circumstances can this be justified. I will not like to be even the last person on earth to ever justify this raw discrimination just because this malady has been an integral part of our legal system not just since independence but since British Raj days as we have also inherited the legal system mostly in the form Britishers handed over to us.

While craving for my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me invite their undiminished attention to what our former. Union Law Minister Sadanand Gowda had said in this regard while as Law Minister for which I fully and unstintedly extend my fullest support to him. He had rightly urged the newly appointed chairman of Law Commission – Justice (retd) Dr BS Chauhan who is a former Supreme Court Judge and former Chairman of Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal to explore the possibility of a 'Bail Act' that would ensure uniformity and predictability in matters relating to grant of bail in the country. Gowda has minced no words in urging Dr Chauhan to explore a major revamp in the bail system so that there is parity between the poor and the rich in their right to bail. I am sure that Dr Chauhan will pay heed to what our Law Minister Sadanand Gowda has very rightly urged him to do so.

For my esteemed readers exclusive benefit, let me also reveal here that Sadanand Gowda met Justice BS Chauhan on March 29, 2016 where he very rightly urged the latter to examine bail laws prevailing in countries such as the UK and US. Under Section 5(3) of the Bail Act, 1976 of the UK, a court in England that withholds bail is required to give reasons for doing so. Likewise, in the US an accused has the right to bail unless there is sufficient reason not to grant it. Why should India also not emulate the law as prevalent now in UK and US rather than blindly sticking to what the British Raj left when they treated Indians as slaves and we were ruled also by them?

Needless to say, the matter was first mooted by the law ministry after Bollywood star Salman Khan was granted bail the same day when he was convicted in a hit-and-run case. The ministry in September had written to the then Chairman of Law Commission – Justice (retd) AP Shah, seeking a report suggesting a revamp of the bail system. We all had seen how Salman Khan quickly got bail just because he had hired top lawyers like Harish Salve whereas we see how on the contrary a poor man who has no money to hire good lawyer languish in jail for an interminably long period just because of his poor financial condition.

I have always opposed tooth and nail Sadanand Gowda for not supporting the creation of a high court bench for not just 26 districts of West UP but for any of the 80 districts of UP except the one at Lucknow which is so close to Allahabad. When 3 high court benches can exist for just 6 crore population of Karnataka with less than 2 lakh pending cases and whose districts are half nearly as compared to that of UP then why can't 3 and rather 5 or 6 high court benches be created for UP which has maximum pending cases among all states – more than 10 lakh as per official figures maintained by the ministry of Law itself, maximum population more than 20 lakh with West UP alone accounting for more than 9 crore population which is much more than Karnataka and most of the other states except Bihar, Maharashtra and UP itself of which it is a part yet has not even a single bench! If 2 benches of high court can be created for home state of Gowda for just 4 and 8 districts at Gulbarga and Dharwad then why can't a single bench be created for 26 districts of West UP or for 80 districts of UP? Similarly why a lawless state like Bihar has no bench? The 230th report of Law Commission favoured more benches not just for Karnataka but for all the big states like UP, Bihar, Rajasthan etc! But on his courageous decision on enacting a uniform bail act, I fully support him.

It may be recalled that Gowda had spearheaded the most commendable initiative with an internal note. He wrote that:
There is a growing dissatisfaction among public about the system of grant of bail. Though it is a uniform and reasonable provision in theory but in practice it does not prove to be so. Rather, it has a crude effect on the undertrials and hence the system of grant of bail has come under severe criticism from a cross-section of society. Therefore the bail system as it is practiced in India may have to be studied in detail and major revamp may have to be brought in. I fully support Gowda's historic initiative.

How I wish he also could have unbiasedly implements 230th report of Law Commission in all major states!
A senior official of the Law ministry while requesting anonymity told reporters of The Economic Times as reported in 13 April, 2016 that , Bail(s) should not be a matter of discretion (of the judges). A poor person should be treated at par with a rich or an influential person when it comes to grant of bail. And that is possible only when there are specific guidelines laid down for grant of bail.

He also said that:
Another benefit of this will be that the judges would be required to give reasons for denying bail which would benefit an accused or an undertrial in challenging the order before an appellate court. Since at present bail is a matter of discretion (of the judges) the accused virtually has no cogent reason to immediately move in appeal against the denial of bail. This is the crying need of the hour also!

Frankly speaking, I wholeheartedly support the landmark initiative of our the then Law Minister Sadanand Gowda in this regard. I am also happy to note that the Law ministry has told the Law Commission to submit a report after detailed examination of the subject.

I am sure that Law Commission too which is headed by a former very learned Judge of the Supreme Court Justice (retd) BS Chauhan too will seize upon this landmark initiative of Gowda and act in the interest of millions of poor people who rot in jail for many years just because they don't have enough money to hire lawyer leave alone good or very good lawyers as opposed to rich people leave alone celebrities like Salman Khan who get bail very easily!

This should now end permanently! Uniform Bail Act must be initiated at the earliest cutting across different states so that no person of any particular state faces any kind of discrimination in this regard! No delay of any kind is advisable on this score! I don't see anything happening on this since last five years when the idea was first mooted historically but let's hope that better wisdom prevails on our lawmakers on this count also!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top