Separate Bail Application Not To Be Insisted When Accused Is Before Magistrate Under Sections 88,170, 204, 209 CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a separate bail application need not be insisted while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code", a bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh ordered.Section 88 deals with the power to take bond for appearance : When any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons or warrant, is present in such Court, such officer may require such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his appearance in such Court, or any other Court to which the case may be transferred for trial.Section 170 is about cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient.: If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.Section 204 and 209 of the Code deals with Issue of process and Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it. Non-bailable warrants not to be issued as a matter of courseWhen the courts seek the attendance of a person, either a summons or a warrant is to be issued depending upon the nature and facts governing the case. Section 87 gives the discretion to the court to issue a warrant, either in lieu of or in addition to summons. The exercise of the aforesaid power can only be done after recording of reasons. A warrant can be either bailable or non-bailable. Section 88 of the Code empowers the Court to take a bond for appearance of a person with or without sureties.Considering the aforesaid two provisions, courts will have to adopt the procedure in issuing summons first, thereafter a bailable warrant, and then a non-bailable warrant may be issued, if so warranted, as held by this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1. Despite the aforesaid clear dictum, we notice that non-bailable warrants are issued as a matter of course without due application of mind and against the tenor of the provision, which merely facilitates a discretion, which is obviously to be exercised in favour of the person whose attendance is sought for, particularly in the light of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, valid reasons have to be given for not exercising discretion in favour of the said person. For due compliance of Section 170 of the Code, there is no need for filing of a bail applicationOn Section 170 CrPC , the bench referred to Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2021) 1 SCC 676 and observed thus:"This is a power which is to be exercised by the court after the completion of the investigation by the agency concerned. Therefore, this is a procedural compliance from the point of view of the court alone, and thus the investigating agency has got a limited role to play. In a case where the prosecution does not require custody of the accused, there is no need for an arrest when a case is sent to the magistrate under Section 170 of the Code. There is not even a need for filing a bail application, as the accused is merely forwarded to the court for the framing of charges and issuance of process for trial. If the court is of the view that there is no need for any remand, then the court can fall back upon Section 88 of the Code and complete the formalities required to secure the presence of the accused for the commencement of the trial. Of course, there may be a situation where a remand may be required, it is only in such cases that the accused will have to be heard. Therefore, in such a situation, an opportunity will have to be given to the accused persons, if the court is of the prima facie view that the remand would be required. We make it clear that we have not said anything on the cases in which the accused persons are already in custody, for which, the bail application has to be decided on its own merits. Suffice it to state that for due compliance of Section 170 of the Code, there is no need for filing of a bail application. "Issuing a warrant may be an exception (Section 204 CrPC)Section 204 of the Code speaks of issue of process while commencing the proceeding before the Magistrate. Sub-section (1)(b) gives a discretion to a Magistrate qua a warrant case, either to issue a warrant or a summons. As this provision gives a discretion, and being procedural in nature, it is to be exercised as a matter of...

Separate Bail Application Not To Be Insisted When Accused Is Before Magistrate Under Sections 88,170, 204, 209 CrPC: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Separate Bail Application Not To Be Insisted When Accused Is Before Magistrate Under Sections 88,170, 204, 209 CrPC: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers