Bail & Personal Liberty : Notable Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022

Earlier this month, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court DY Chandrachud remarked that no case is small for Supreme Court and that it has to interfere in matters relating to personal liberty. A detailed look into the orders passed by the Supreme Court regarding personal liberty in the past year would indicate that it did uphold the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in several cases. One of the biggest highlights of this year was the Top Court asking the Centre to come up with a 'Bail Act' dealing with grant of bails. Another was the Apex Court keeping the infamous Sedition law under abeyance until further orders. Below are the key judgments and orders passed by the Supreme Court which protected personal liberty.It is to be noted that the judgments/orders are in no specific order relating to relevance or timeline on when it was delivered by the Court.Democracy Can Never Be A Police StateIn a landmark case, the Top Court, in June asked the Union Government to introduce a special enactment like a "Bail Act" to streamline the grant of bail in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation. The Court also stressed the importance of the rule "bail over jail" and issued a slew of guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrest and remand."Once again, we have to reiterate that 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception' coupled with the principle governing the presumption of innocence. We have no doubt in our mind that this provision is a substantive one, facilitating liberty, being the core intendment of Article 21", the judgment stated.A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sunderesh added that any non-compliance with Sections 41 and 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code at the time of arrest would entitle the accused to bail.The Court was of the view that the problem of flooding of under-trial prisoners is caused mostly due to unnecessary arrests, which are carried out in violation of Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC and the directions issued in the Arnesh Kumar judgment.Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation.Unexplained, Avoidable & Prolonged Delay In Concluding Trial, Appeal Or Revision Would Be A Factor For Consideration Of BailAs part of the abovementioned case, the Supreme Court held that an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision would be a factor for consideration of bail.A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh noted that it expects the Courts to comply with Section 309 of the Cr.P.C., which, though contemplates proceedings to be held on a day-to-day basis, curves out exceptions and grants power to Courts to postpone or adjourn proceedings.However, the Bench was of the view, that in case of any unreasonable delay, the accused ought to get the benefit of the same, notwithstanding the benefit that might enure to the accused under Section 436A of the Code.Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation.Hold On Sedition Law Under IPCIn a historic development, the Supreme Court, in May, ordered that the 152-year old sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code should be effectively kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision.In an interim order, the Court urged the Centre and the State governments to refrain from registering any FIRs under the said provision while it was under re-consideration.A bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli held that all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges framed under Section124 A be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other sections may proceed with no prejudice be caused to the accused, it held.The bench said in its order :"We hope and expect Centre and State Governments will refrain from registering any FIR, continuing investigation, or taking coercive steps under Section 124A IPC when it is under reconsideration. It will be appropriate not to use this provision of law till further re-examination is over."The Court also held that those already booked under Section 124A IPC and are in jail can approach the concerned courts for bail. It has also been ruled that if any fresh case is registered appropriate parties are at liberty to approach courts for appropriate relief and courts are requested to examine the relief sought taking into account the order passed by the court.The Court's decision was welcomed by both the legal fraternity and citizens considering the fact that the stay on the provision was ordered amidst various arrests by the Centre and respective state governments.Case Title: S.G. Vombatkere Vs Union Of India ( Wpc 682/2021) Editors Guild Of India And Anr. Vs Union Of India And Ors. (Wpc 552/2021)Convicts Who've Completed 10 Years Of Sentence, Whose Appeals Won't Be Heard Soon, Should Be Released On Bail Unless There Are Other ReasonsThe Supreme Court of...

Bail & Personal Liberty : Notable Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022

Rintu Mariam Biju

Tags