Guidelines for grant of bail to an accused after the filing of the chargesheet-Presence of accused is not prerequsite for taking cognizance

 

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI Supreme Court 07/10/2021, SLP(Crl) 5191/2021

Guidelines on the aspect of grant of bail to accused who are not arrested during investigation on charge sheet being filed.

 The requisite conditions for this guideline to apply are:

(1) Not arrested during investigation.

(2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called.

 Category (A) Offences

 Category (A) Offences are those which punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D. This category deals with both police cases and complaint cases.The following guidelines are issued for this category:

 After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance:

 a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

 b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

 c) NBW on failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

 d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

 e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

 

Category B and D Offences

 Category (B) Offences are those which are punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years. Economic offences not covered by Special Acts are Category (D), For these offences, on appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits.

 

Category C Offences

 In case of Category (C) offences [Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.], the same guidelines as Category B & D are applicable with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail uner NDPS S. 37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43 d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc.

 

The court also agreed with the suggestion that, to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest.

 "The caveat which has been put by learned ASG is that where the accused have not cooperated in the investigation nor appeared before the Investigating Officers, nor answered summons when the Court feels that judicial custody of the accused is necessary for the completion of the trial, where further investigation including a possible recovery is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot give them benefit, something we agree with.", the court noted in the order.

 A copy of this order be circulated to the Registrars of the different High Courts to be further circulated to the trial Courts so that the unnecessary bail matters do not come up to this Court, the court ordered.

 

Background

In Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court had held that Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet. It was observed that the practice of some Trial Courts of insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the charge-sheet on record is misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

 Recently in Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI, the court observed that, while accepting charge-sheet, the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. It was also observed that, if an accused in a non-bailable offence has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, it would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail to suddenly direct his arrest merely because charge sheet has been filed.

 

Revenue Authorites not acepting Appeals under various reveneu acts- High Court Judgment- The words “land matters” used in the Memo issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 07.09.2020, can only be construed to be in relation to the matters pertaining to the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, but not with regard to the matters arising under various other revenue enactments

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY 

WRIT PETITION No.27986 of 2021 

ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 2. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering and disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 24 of Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, on 12.07.2021, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated, across the Bench, that based on the Circular issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 07.09.2020 vide CCLAs Ref. No. Assn.I(1)/463/2020, the revenue authorities are not taking up the matter for disposal even though they do not pertain to the provisions under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the said action is not proper on the part of the authorities. 4. Having regard to the fact that the Special Tribunals are exclusively constituted under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, for the purpose of deciding all the pending matters under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No.2, under Section 24 of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, has to be decided on its own merits, as the Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The revenue authorities cannot 2 abdicate the duties cast upon them under the Act and fail to pass any orders in the matters pertaining to the subjects other than the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 i.e., matters emanating under the provisions of Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, The Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, Telangana Agriculture Land (conversion for Non-agriculture purpose) Act, 2006, the Telangana NonAgricultural Lands Assessment Act etc. The words “land matters” used in the Memo issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 07.09.2020, can only be construed to be in relation to the matters pertaining to the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, but not with regard to the matters arising under various other revenue enactments. 5. In view of the above, since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is under Section 24 of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, the appellate authority i.e., respondent No.2 herein is directed to dispose of the Appeal preferred by the petitioner on 12.07.2021, on its own merits and strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. The miscellaneous petition pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 09.11.2021. sur