Addressing the issue of undertrial inmates languishing in jails even after having been granted bail, due to their failure to fulfill the conditions set in the bail order or for other reasons, the Supreme Court issued a number of guidelines to deal with the same. The guidelines are as follows:
“1)The Court which grants bail to an undertrial prisoner/convict would be required to send a soft copy of the bail order by e-mail to the prisoner through the Jail Superintendent on the same day or the next day. The Jail Superintendent would be required to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prisons software [or any other software which is being used by the Prison Department].
2) If the accused is not released within a period of 7 days from the date of grant of bail, it would be the duty of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the Secretary, DLSA who may depute para legal volunteer or jail visiting advocate to interact with the prisoner and assist the prisoner in all ways possible for his release.
3) NIC would make attempts to create necessary fields in the e-prison software so that the date of grant of bail and date of release are entered by the Prison Department and in case the prisoner is not released within 7 days, then an automatic email can be sent to the Secretary, DLSA
4) The Secretary, DLSA with a view to find out the economic condition of the accused, may take help of the Probation Officers or the Para Legal Volunteers to prepare a report on the socio-economic conditions of the inmate which may be placed before the concerned Court with a request to relax the condition (s) of bail/surety.
5) In cases where the undertrial or convict requests that he can furnish bail bond or sureties once released, then in an appropriate case, the Court may consider granting temporary bail for a specified period to the accused so that he can furnish bail bond or sureties.
6) If the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the date of grant bail, the concerned Court may suo-moto take up the case and consider whether the conditions of bail require modification/ relaxation.
7) One of the reasons which delays the release of the accused/ convict is the insistence upon local surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose the condition of local surety.”
Following discussions with ASG K. M. Nataraj, the three Amici Curiae, Advocates Gaurav Agrawal, Liz Mathew, and Devansh A. Mohta, presented extensive and comprehensive suggestions to the court. The above-mentioned directions are a part of the same, as has been reported by the LiveLaw.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka further stated in the ruling that the Government of India should negotiate with NALSA whether it would provide secured access to the e-prison portal to the Secretaries of the SLSAs and DLSAs, allowing for improved follow-up with jail authorities. ASG KM Nataraj informed the bench that giving permission would not be a problem, but that he would obtain instructions and report to the court on the next hearing date, as provided by the LiveLaw.
Previous directions given by the SC- Disposing cases through Plea Bargaining, Compounding of Offences and Probation of Offenders Act
In September 2022, the Supreme Court had issued the following guidelines for disposal of criminal cases by resorting to the triple method of plea bargaining, compounding of offences and under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
“As a pilot case, one Court each of Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ld. ACJM or CJM, and Court of Sessions in each district may be selected.
The said courts may identify cases pending at pre-trial stage, or evidence stage and where the accused is charge sheeted /charged with offence(s) with a maximum sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment. The Ld. Court would exclude cases mentioned in Section 265A Cr.P.C., namely offences notified by the Central Government vide notification dated 11.07.2006 or offences committed against women or child/ children less than 14 years.
The identified cases can thereafter be posted on a working Saturday or any other day which is suitable to the court with notice to the Public Prosecutor, complainant and the accused. The said notice would indicate that the court proposes to consider disposing of those cases under Chapter XXIA of Cr.P.C. plea bargaining, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or compounding i.e. Section 320 Cr.P.C. The notice will also indicate that the accused/complainant would be entitled to avail legal aid and details of the District Legal Services Authority would be made available in the said notice. It would also be made clear that the accused has to remain present with his/ her advocate and the complainant may also remain present with his/her advocate.
The Public Prosecutor would be required to ascertain the criminal antecedents of the accused. Only cases of first time offenders would be taken up.
On the date fixed, the court can inform the accused of the provisions of plea bargaining. The Court can also persuade the parties to compound the offence (if the offences are compoundable). The Court can also inform the accused of the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The services of panel lawyers from District Legal Services Authority would also be made available to the accused/ Complainant.
The Court may give time to the accused/complainant to think over the matter and give another date.
In cases where the under trial is in judicial custody, the trial court may explain to the accused and the learned counsel appearing for the accused to explore the possibility of plea bargaining or compounding or benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The accused can be given time to consider the matter. The services of panel lawyers of District Legal Services Authority can also be made available. For this purpose, a list of such accused can be furnished to the Secretary, DLSA to depute the panel lawyers of sufficient seniority to explain the provisions to the accused, who are in custody.
It is suggested that a brief training session may also be organised for the Ld. Judicial Officers in the Judicial Academies.
A timeline of 4 months may be fixed to carry out this exercise namely:- i) Training of Judicial Officers & Identification of cases – 1 month ii) Notice to the parties – 1 month iii) Consideration of the matter – 2 months”
The above guidelines formed a part of the detailed and comprehensive suggestions submitted to court by the three Amici Curiae viz. Advocates Gaurav Agrawal, Liz Mathew and Devansh A. Mohta, after discussion with ASG K. M. Nataraj.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka had also observed that High Courts may depute a Nodal Officer of the rank of the Registrar in each of the Courts to carry out the monitoring of the above. It had added the following two caveats:
“(a) Instead of prescribing only one Court in each District, as specified in clause 3.1 above, we leave it to the administrative side of the High Court to prescribe such number of Courts as may be considered practical by each of the High Court.
(b) In matters where time bound schedule has been laid down by the High Courts or Supreme Court of India, that schedule should not be disturbed so as to avoid delay in those cases.”
The complete order can be read here.
Related:
Siddique Kappan to finally walk out of Jail!
Siddique Kappan directed to furnish 2 sureties of Rs 1 lakh each for Bail Proceedings under PMLA
1.9 lakh POCSO cases pending in Fast Track Courts: Ministry of Women and Child Development