9 Feb 2023 6:17 AM GMT
The Supreme Court, recently, asked non-compliant State Governments to file compliance reports in the proceedings in Satinder Kumar Antil v. CBI, within two weeks, failing which, it warned, the respective Home Secretaries would be required to appear personally through virtual mode. It also asked the CBI to file its compliance report within the said time period.“The CBI has also not...
The Supreme Court, recently, asked non-compliant State Governments to file compliance reports in the proceedings in Satinder Kumar Antil v. CBI, within two weeks, failing which, it warned, the respective Home Secretaries would be required to appear personally through virtual mode. It also asked the CBI to file its compliance report within the said time period.
“The CBI has also not filed compliance report.
We grant two weeks’ time to the CBI and the States to file their compliance report, failing which, their respective Home Secretaries will appear personally through the virtual mode.”
A Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka passed the order, while considering compliance of the State Governments with the Apex Court’s judgment in Satinder Kumar Antil, wherein it had issued elaborate guidelines to ease the process of bail.
Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sidharth Luthra informed the Bench that several States are yet to file status reports in the matter. He provided a list of non-compliant States which includes as many as 30 states - Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry and Ladakh. In this regard the Bench noted -
“Now turning to the states which are yet to file the compliance report. It appears that hardly any of the states have filed the report. The States who have not filed or at least not given a copy to Mr. Sidharth Luthra’s office are thirty in number…”
In Satinder Kumar Antil the Supreme Court had observed that any non-compliance of Section 41 and 41A of Criminal Procedure Code at the time of arrest would entitle the accused for grant of bail. The court had also directed the State Governments and the Union Territories to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code.It had passed a slew of directions in this regard. The Supreme Court had further observed that a separate bail application need not be insisted upon while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It recommended the Union Government introduce a special enactment in the nature of a "Bail Act" to streamline the grant of bail.
[Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI MA No. 2034/2022 in MA No. 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021]
Click here to read/download the order