SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
Headnote
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., [2022] 10 S.C.R. 351 — Supreme Court of India (Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.) — July 11, 2022. BAIL — Grant of — CrPC, ss. 41, 41A, 88, 167(2), 170, 204, 209, 309, 389, 436, 436A, 437, 439, 440 — Constitution, Arts. 21 & 22 — Comprehensive directions issued governing grant of bail across all categories of offences. Held: (i) Government of India may consider enacting a separate Bail Act to streamline bail. (ii) Investigating agencies are duty-bound to comply with ss. 41 and 41A; courts must satisfy themselves of such compliance; non-compliance entitles the accused to bail. (iii) All State Governments and UTs directed to facilitate standing orders under ss. 41 and 41A. (iv) No insistence on a bail application while considering matters under ss. 88, 170, 204 and 209. (v) Sections 41 and 41A are facets of Art. 21. (vi) Right under s. 167(2) is absolute and indefeasible; detention beyond prescribed period is illegal; applies equally to Special Acts containing a pari materia provision. (vii) Section 436A applies to Special Acts in absence of any specific provision; all periods of incarceration to be reckoned; no bail application necessary where delay is not attributable to the accused. (viii) Bail applications to be disposed of within two weeks; anticipatory bail within six weeks. (ix) High Courts to identify undertrial prisoners unable to comply with bail conditions and act under s. 440; surety conditions must not be excessive or impossible of compliance. (x) State and Central Governments to fill vacancies of Presiding Officers in special courts expeditiously. (xi) Economic offences cannot be categorised as a single class for blanket denial of bail; gravity, object of special Act and attending circumstances govern. (xii) Unexplained and prolonged delay in trial/appeal/revision under s. 309 is a factor for bail; delay under s. 389 coupled with s. 436A benefit to be considered. (xiii) Uniformity in bail decisions is a constitutional imperative; differential treatment of accused charged with the same offence violates Arts. 14 and 15. State Governments, UTs and High Courts directed to file affidavits/status reports within four months.
Issue
1. Whether comprehensive directions can be issued to investigating agencies and courts to streamline grant of bail across all offence-categories under CrPC. 2. Whether non-compliance with ss. 41 and 41A CrPC entitles an accused to bail as a matter of right. 3. Whether ss. 436A and 167(2) CrPC apply to Special Acts in the absence of specific provisions. 4. Whether courts can insist on a formal bail application under ss. 88, 170, 204 and 209 CrPC. 5. Whether economic offences constitute a distinct class warranting blanket denial of bail.
Facts
Applications were filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions and clarifications on aspects governing grant of bail, prompted by a continuous supply of cases where bail was sought after filing of a final report on a wrong interpretation of s. 170 CrPC. The Court, with assistance from senior counsel and the Additional Solicitor General, categorised offences into four groups and examined the entire bail jurisprudence under CrPC, including undertrial detention, compliance with ss. 41/41A, default bail under s. 167(2), surety conditions under s. 440, and bail pending appeal under s. 389, before issuing comprehensive systemic directions.
Holding
Non-compliance with ss. 41 and 41A CrPC entitles an accused to bail as a right; these provisions are facets of Art. 21. The right to default bail under s. 167(2) is absolute and indefeasible and applies equally under Special Acts having a pari materia provision. No bail application is required under ss. 88, 170, 204 and 209 CrPC. Section 436A applies to Special Acts; entire period of incarceration counts. Economic offences cannot be categorically denied bail without regard to individual facts. Bail applications must be decided within two weeks; anticipatory bail within six weeks. Prolonged unexplained trial delay is a factor favouring bail. Differential treatment of accused persons charged with the same offence violates Arts. 14 and 15.
Disposition
disposed