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
Saturday, November 23, 2024

Delhi HC Suggests Changes In Section 438 Of CrPC (BNSS) On Bail Requirement For Release After Acquittal

Posted in: Criminal Law
Sat, Oct 14, 23, 10:59, 1 Year ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 13804
Firasat Hussain vs State of NCT of Delhi the Parliament’s Select Committee to make changes in Section 438 of the new CrPC

It is of utmost significance to note that on a very significant legal point pertaining to the bail requirement for release after acquittal, the Delhi High Court has in a most learned, laudable, logical, landmark and latest judgment titled Firasat Hussain vs State of NCT of Delhi in CRL.A. 1308/2015 that was pronounced as recently as on October 3, 2023 has minced just no words whatsoever to suggest the Parliament’s Select Committee to make changes in Section 438 of the new CrPC [BNSS] (akin to Section 437A of Code of 1973) pertaining to the requirement of furnishing of personal bond with surety by an accused on his acquittal.

It must be noted that a Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna who have authored this noteworthy judgment suggested to the Select Committee to replace the word shall with may and replace the word bail or bail bond with personal bond with or without surety. It merits mentioning that the Division Bench was hearing a plea raising the issue regarding the mandatory requirement, especially in cases where the accused is forced to continue to remain in jail despite his acquittal due to non-furnishing of the surety.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth aptly in para 1 that:
During the pendency of the appeal, a medical report dated 03.03.2018 of the appellant was received before this Court from the Director, Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS) stating that the appellant was diagnosed as a case of Dysthymia with Severe Depressive Episode with Lumbosacral Radiculopathy with Benzodiazepine dependence syndrome. On appropriate treatment, appellant showed significant improvement in depressive and behavioural symptoms at that point of time. The communication ended by stating that currently patient is behaviourally stable and can be managed on an outpatient basis.

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 that:
This court on 12.12.2017 considered the circumstances of the appellant who despite being acquitted could not be released as he was not able to furnish the bond in terms of Section 437A of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Mr. Jawahar Raja, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the interpretation of Section 437A Cr.P.C. regarding the requirement by an accused who is acquitted to execute the bail bonds with sureties anticipating further appeal in a higher Court and also on the consequential directions that can be issued.

As we see, the Division Bench discloses in para 3 that:
This Court vide order dated 06.03.2018 observed as under:

  1. The Court is of the view that the situation should be reviewed after two months. The Court appreciates the efforts being made by IHBAS in this regard. A fresh status report will be sent by the Director, IHBAS to this Court on the next date of hearing.
     
  2. On the aspect of examining the vires of Section 437-A Cr. P.C, the Court directs notice to be issued to Union of India through its Standing Counsel. Mr Anil Soni, CGSC accepts notice. The Registry will supply Mr. Soni a complete set of papers forthwith.
     
  3. Mr. Jawahar Raja, the learned Advocate appointed as amicus curiae has not been appearing in the matter. The Registry will ensure that a complete set of the paper book is served upon him and that he is also given notice (without process fee) of the next date of hearing.


Do note, the Division Bench then notes succinctly in para 4 that:
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/Union of India submits that new Criminal Laws have been introduced in the Parliament and thereafter sent to Select Committee which is pending for further consideration. The issue raised before this Court is that in case an accused is acquitted of the charges tried against him, however, on acquittal, he has to furnish personal bond with surety bond as per Section 437A Cr.P.C. In some cases, if an accused fails to furnish the surety, he is forced to continue to remain in jail despite his acquittal due to non-furnishing of surety. Therefore, vide order dated 06.03.2018, Union of India was directed to examine the vires of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

As things stands, we see that the Division Bench then specifies in para 5 that, Learned counsel for the respondents submits that new Criminal Laws are under consideration which will answer the issue raised before this Court.

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 6 that:
A copy of new Criminal Laws has been produced before this Court by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India, who submits that Section 483 of New Criminal Laws is taking care of the issue pending before this Court, whereby it reads as under:

483. (1) Before conclusion of the trial and before disposal of the appeal, the Court trying the offence or the Appellate Court, as the case may be, shall require the accused to execute bond or bail bond, to appear before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective Court and such bond shall be in force for six months. (2) If such accused fails to appear, the bond stand forfeited and the procedure under section 493 shall apply.

Frankly speaking, the Division Bench concedes in para 7 that:
We have perused the aforesaid section and are of the opinion that even Section 483 of the New Criminal Laws does not resolve the issue which has been raised suo moto by this Court. The aforesaid Section stipulates that bail is required by the accused to appear before next Appellate Court and the Court who is trying the offence or the Appellate Court, as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective court, shall require the accused to execute bond or bail bond. In the aforesaid section, the word ‘shall’ means it is mandatory for the accused to furnish bail bond with surety.

Quite significantly, the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 8 propounding that:
Therefore, we suggest that the Select Committee should replace the word ‘shall’ with ‘may’ and replace the word ‘bail or bail bond’ with ‘personal bond with or without surety’.

Most significantly, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 9 that, Though the new Criminal Laws are under consideration before the Select Committee and already put up before the Parliament but it may take some time for the Criminal Laws to be modified, therefore, in the meanwhile, we hereby direct the learned trial courts that in cases relating to Section 437A, the word ‘shall’ shall be read as ‘may’ and the word ‘bail or bail bond’ shall be read as ‘personal bond with or without surety’.

It is worth noting that the Division Bench then notes and specifies in para 10 stating that:
Pertinently, the appeal was allowed vide order dated 27.07.2022, therefore, in view of above directions, no further order is required to be passed in the main Criminal Appeal. The Reference is answered accordingly.

What’s more, the Division Bench then further directs in para 11 holding that, Copy of this order be provided to the Principal District & Sessions Judges who shall get this order circulated to all the Judicial Officers of their Districts.

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 12 that:
Copy of this order shall also be sent to the Select Committee for consideration.

All said and done, it is high time and Centre and so also the Parliament Select Committee must at least now take most seriously what has been suggested so very sagaciously by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in this leading case. It thus definitely merits no reiteration that the changes that have been suggested so very elegantly, eloquently and effectively by the Delhi High Court to make changes in Section 438 of the new CrPC [BNSS] that is akin to Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 pertaining to the requirement of furnishing of personal bond with surety by an accused on his acquittal must be given effect to at the earliest. The Division Bench suggested that the Select Committee should replace the word ‘shall’ with ‘may’ and replace the word ‘bail or bail bond’ with ‘personal bond with or without surety’. In addition, we saw that the Division Bench while noting that it may take some time for the new criminal laws to be modified and so in the meanwhile directed the Trial Courts that in cases relating to Section 437A of CrPC, the word shall shall be read as may and the word bail or bail bond shall be read as personal bond with or without surety. Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) 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