Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court recently directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to carry out an exercise identifying all undertrial prisoners in 55 districts who have been granted bail but have not been released due to failure to comply with bail conditions, including execution of sureties.

The Court has stated that the exercise would cover all undertrial prisoners irrespective of whether they have engaged a private lawyer or have sought assistance of the District Legal Services Authority(DLSA). Further, it must be carried out with the help of the concerned DLSA.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale passed these directions in a suo motu matter in which the issue related to the release of undertrials who haven't been released due to their unwillingness or inability to furnish bail sureties.  The bench made clear that this can't be an adversarial litigation where benefit is only extended to those who are being given assistance of NALSA. 

"This direction shall be applicable even to those under-trial prisoners who could not comply with the bail conditions, despite the fact that they have engaged the private lawyers. There cannot be any differentiation between the under-trial prisoners, who have the assistance of District Legal Services Authority and those who have engaged private counsel."

The orders were passed after hearing the submissions made by the Senior Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Pradeep Mishra, counsel for NALSA and the petitioners. It was informed to the Court that in UP, there are 264 undertrial prisoners who have been granted bail, out of which only 158 have been released. 106 prisoners are yet to be released due to the want of execution of sureties, or other conditions imposed by the Trial Court. 

It was further informed that the 264 prisoner statistic is only for 20 districts. NALSA is yet to carry out such exercise of identifying undertrials in 55 districts. 

Considering the submissions, the bench stated that in both categories of undertrials, those who are either getting assistance of DLSA or private lawyers, the issue is with respect to the non-compliance of the bail conditions imposed. 

"The fact remains that both the categories are similar with respect to non-compliance of the bail conditions imposed. Merely because the private lawyers have been engaged, the assistance from the District Legal Services Authority counsel cannot be denied and also the benefit that has been extended to such of persons who have already been rendered assistance by the District Legal Services Authorities. Litigation cannot be adversarial in that sense. Therefore, notwithstanding the presence of counsel appearing for the accused person who have been granted bail, further assistance can be rendered by the District Legal Services Authorities to them."

While making these observations, the Court made it clear that the onus to ensure that these persons are released from custody lies on the State of Uttar Pradesh. It has also requested the Trial Courts to take up cases identified by the respective DLSA to modify bail conditions so that the undertrials could be released.

"In any case, the onus lies on the State to make sure that these persons are released from custody. We also request the concerned Courts to take up those cases which were brought into notice by the respective District Legal Services Authorities and modify the condition(s) suitably, so that the under-trial prisoners can be released accordingly."

Background

The present suo motu proceedings arise from various systemic reforms of which the Supreme Court took cognisance and appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal as amicus curiae. One of the issues is of the undertrial prisoners who continue to be in custody despite being granted bail due to their inability to fulfil the bail conditions or pay sureties. 

In 2023, NALSA submitted a report in which it was stated that there were 5,000 undertrial prisoners who were in jail, despite the grant of bail. Out of this, 2,357 persons were provided legal assistance and 1,417 persons have been released. The reason flagged was that either there are multiple cases pending against the accused persons who have not been released or they are not willing to furnish bail bonds until he is given bail in all cases. 

In this case, the Court had passed comprehensive directions to mitigate the delay, one of which was if the accused person hasn't been able to furnish bail bond within a month of release, the concerned Court should take up the case suo motu and consider relaxing the bail conditions.

Appearances: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Sr. Adv.(Amicus Curiae)

For Respondent(s) Mr. P. I. Jose- 1206, AOR Mr. Atul Arvind, Adv. Mr. Dr. Mahesh Y Reddy, Adv. Mr. Darshan Chandrakant Siddarkar, Adv. Mr. Varun Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rashika Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav- 1919, AOR Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal- 2342, AOR Mr. Gaurav Dhama, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma- 3081, AOR Mr. Mukesh K. Giri- 1134, AOR Mr. Mandaar Mukesh Giri, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akshay Girish Ringe- 2334, AOR

Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Mr. K.M.nataraj, A.S.G.(not present) Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kr.verma, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kr.sharma, Adv Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal- 909, AOR Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. Mr. Mili Joy Baxi, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Arushi Kulshrestha, Adv. Ms. Mrinmoyee Das, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria- 2324, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal- 2955, AOR Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv. For M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co- 867, AOR

Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Barua, Adv. Ms. Aparna Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Surjeet Singh Ga, Adv. Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah- 2308, AOR Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla- 2830, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy- 1749, AOR Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv.

Mr. Sawan Datta, Adv. Ms. Shireesha Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shreya Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar- 2788, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Partha Sil, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Srijit Datta, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv.

Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy- 1672, AOR Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Chirag Kr. Golchha, Adv. Mr. Divyakant Lahoti- 2188, AOR Ms. Madhur J., Adv. Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee- 2680, AOR Ms. Vishakha- 3831, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Raj Sahay, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Atrey- 1601, AOR Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv. Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Adv. Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jagdeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. V Balachandran, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv.

For M/S. Ksn & Co.- 2147, AOR Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta- 2656, AOR Ms. Nidhi Mittal- 3800, AOR Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania- 1594, AOR Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv.

Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Yeshu Mehta, Adv. Mr. Tanay Hegde, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Amit Pai, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv. Ms. Ananya Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda- 3361, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Shamra, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Debojit Borkakati- 2102, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi- 2648, AOR Mr. Z.h. Isaac Haiding, Adv. Mr. Daniel Stone Lyngdoh, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Ms. Preeti Sehrawat, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Aslam- 3269 , AOR Mr. Milind Kumar- 1566, AOR Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh- 2093, AOR Ms. Nidhi Narwal, Adv. Ms. Srishti Jain, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Malwal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Singh, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR

Ms. Shreya Kasera, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Talukdar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande- 3259, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Anamika Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha- 2084, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar- 2516, AOR Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Yachna Sharma, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh- 3175 , AOR

Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv. Ms. Akansha, Adv. Ms. Anjali Saxena, Adv. Mr. Govind Sharma, Adv. Mr. Saanil Patnayak, Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra- 1398, AOR Mr. Manav Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed- 2127, AOR Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Sakshi Banga, Adv. Ms. Charvi Reddy, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Md. Sheikh Khalid Saifullah, Adv. Ms. Shanta Pandey, Adv. Mr. Balajee D. Kotgire, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal- 1350, AOR Mr. Aravindh S.- 2008, AOR Mr. Vansh Malik, Adv. Mr. Shovan Mishra- 2456, AOR Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Shlok Luthra, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya- 3124 , AOR Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli- 1285, AOR Mr. V. K. Biju- 2002, AOR Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh- 2454, AOR Ms. Sindoora Vnl- 3122, AOR Ms. Alika Priya, Adv.

Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Piar Singh Rana, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang,, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker- 2357, AOR Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Rai, Adv. Mr. Atharve Tiwari, Adv.

Tags: