"District Judiciary Extremely Tight-Fisted In Granting Bail": MP HC Issues Directions To Police, Judicial Magistrates For Implementing Arnesh Kumar Guidelines
Observing that the district judiciary is "extremely tight fisted" while granting bail, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued guidelines to the Police authorities and Judicial Magistrates in the State for implementation of guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar judgment while dealing with the bail applications. A single judge bench comprising of Justice Atul Sreedharan observed...
Observing that the district judiciary is "extremely tight fisted" while granting bail, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued guidelines to the Police authorities and Judicial Magistrates in the State for implementation of guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar judgment while dealing with the bail applications.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Atul Sreedharan observed thus:
"The hesitancy of the District Judiciary to adhere to the rule of 'bail and not jail' is understandable. There exists a widespread fear amongst judges of the District Judiciary that they may be questioned by the High Court, or complaints may be preferred against them by disgruntled lawyers or litigants whenever they pass orders granting bail which in turn, results in a vigilance enquiry against them."
Furthermore, the Court said:
"The importance of having a District Judiciary unfettered and fearless cannot be underscored enough. In a state like Madhya Pradesh with widespread poverty, illiteracy and lack of resources, it is only a free, independent and fearless District Judiciary that can ensure that the end user of the justice system is given justice at the very first level and does not have to move higher up the hierarchy of Courts to get justice."
Directions issued to the Police
1. Where for an offence, the maximum imprisonment provided is up to 7 years, the accused shall not be arrested by the police as an ordinary course of action. Unless it is a special statute mandating such an arrest.
2. Before effecting an arrest in such a case, the police would have to record its reasons that the arrest was essential to prevent such person from committing any further offence, or for a proper investigation of the case, or to prevent the accused from causing the disappearance of evidence or on the basis of credible apprehension that the accused would tamper with evidence or prevent a witness from disclosing such facts to the court or to the police which thereby necessitates the arrest of the accused.
3. The State Police is directed to format and prepare a check list of pre-conditions fulfilled by the police under section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C, while arresting an accused for offences bearing a maximum punishment up to 7 years. It is mandatory to supply a copy of the check list along with the remand application, to the Magistrate authorised to further remand the accused to police or judicial custody.
4. Where decision is taken not to arrest the accused, the police shall forward an intimation to the Magistrate within two weeks of the registration of the FIR. This period may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned with reasons to be recorded in writing.
5. Where interrogation of the accused is required, notice in terms of section 41A Cr.P.C or s. 160 Cr.P.C be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of registration of the FIR which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned for reasons to be recorded in writing.
6. Where the police does not arrest the accused and upon notice u/s. 41A or 160 Cr.P.C, the accused appears before the police and assists the police in the course of investigation, in such a situation, the police are not to arrest the accused unless, there exists compelling reasons which must be recorded.
7. If the police does not perform as required of them as hereinabove, it would constitute contempt of the order passed by this court in addition to such other action, which may be taken against the erring officer on the administrative side.
Directions Issued to the Judicial Magistrates
1. The Magistrate, while exercising powers of remand, shall ascertain if the arrest effected by the police satisfies the requirements of section 41 of the CRPC as provided in paragraph 11.2 of Arnesh Kumar's case.
2. The Magistrate shall ascertain the availability of the check list as ordered by the Supreme Court in paragraph 11.3 of Arnesh Kumar's case.
3. If there is non-compliance of paragraph 11.2 and/or 11.3 of Arnesh Kumar's case, the Magistrate shall not authorise the further detention of the accused and shall release forthwith as the arrest itself is unlawful and therefore, his detention would also be rendered unlawful on account of the police not having fulfilled the requirements of section 41 of CRPC.
4. It is mandatory for the Magistrate authorising detention to record his independent satisfaction and also ensure in his order of remand that his satisfaction for further remand of the accused stands satisfied in compliance of paragraph 11.4 of Arnesh Kumar's judgement.
5. The Magistrate shall also satisfy himself whether specific reasons have been recorded for the arrest of the accused and whether those reasons are relevant, raising a reasonable conclusion that one of the conditions for further detention of the accused as an under trial is satisfied.
6. Failure on the part of the Magistrate to perform as directed hereinabove, may see the initiation of proceedings against such Magistrate on the administrative side.
While issuing the said directions, the Court also observed that bail cannot be denied merely because the allegations relate to the commission of a heinous offence.
"However, what the Courts must consciously exclude is the cacophony of hyper opinionated and unmoderated voices on social, print and electronic media. Public perception must never be a factor while deciding a bail application." The Court went ahead to observe.
Factors to be Kept in Mind While Considering Bail Applications
1. Whether, granting bail to the under-trial would result in him attempting to overawe and influence the witness or influence the course of investigation, either by threat of dire consequences or by monetary inducement?
2. Whether, the probability of the under-trial, upon his release, committing another crime while on bail, would be germane while considering grant of bail to recidivists or repeat offenders?
3. Whether, there is a probability upon the release of the accused on bail that he would fall victim of any vengeful action by the Complainant?
4. Whether, the release of the accused on bail would raise a reasonable apprehension of breach of peace, and social or civil unrest, on account of the nature of the offence alleged against him?
5. Whether, the accused would destroy the evidence yet to be collected during investigation, upon his release on bail?
6. Whether, the overwhelming nature of prima facie evidence against the accused is such that he may be tempted to abscond and evade the process of justice all together if he is enlarged on bail?
The Court also observed that the District Judiciary must create an environment where bail applications can be decided at the first tier of the justice system itself.
Observing that there is no legislative provision that mandates the disposal of a bail application within a fixed period of time, the Court observed that the ends of justice do demand that it be so done in the shortest possible time.
"In other words, the endeavour must be to see that justice is done at the level of the District Court itself. The applicant may only be too willing to try his luck a second time before the District Courts itself as along as his application is not dismissed on merits. Such an option must be given to the applicant." The Court said.
Title: Zarina Begum v. State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. E.O.W