Supreme Court Asks Police Chiefs To Take Action Against Erring Officials For Arrests In Violation Of S.41/41A CrPC & SC Guidelines

The Supreme Court recently directed that every Magistrate and Sessions judge to inform its jurisdictional Principal District judge about any form of non-compliance by the police in following the arrest guidelines laid down in the Satender Kumar Antil's case within 1 week of recording such non-compliance.

The reports regarding the non-compliance should ultimately be forwarded to the Head of Police through the Registrar General of the High Court. The Head of the Police should then take action against erring officials, the Court directed.

In the Satender Kumar Anil case, the court had issued a slew of directions on July 11, 2022, to prevent arbitrary arrest and to streamline the process of granting bail, upheld cardinal criminal principle of 'bail is the norm, jail is an exception'.

Paragraphs 100.1 and 100.2 (as per the SCC report )of the judgment refers to:

"100.2 The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.

100.3 The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail."

On August 6, a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar found that para 100.2 and 100.3 of the judgment have not been complied with. It has now given one last chance to the States, Union Territories and High Courts to comply with the same.

Pursuant to this, it directed:

  1. Every Magistrate and Sessions judge shall inform its jurisdictional Principal District judge about any form of non-compliance of the para.100.2 or 100.3 within 1 week of recording such non-compliance; 

  2. Every Principal District Judge shall maintain a record of non-compliance details received from concerned Magistrates;

  3. Monthly, every Principal District Judge shall forward the details of non-compliance so received to the Registrar General of the High Court and Head of Police. The Head of Police upon receipt of details of non-compliance of para 100.2, take action against the erring officer as soon as possible and inform the Principal District Judge;

  4. The Registrar General shall forward the details of such non-compliance before the Committee for "Ensuring the Implementation of the Decisions of the Apex Court". If the High Court does not have such a committee in place, it shall constitute one.

The court further noted: "directions are also required to be issued to set in place an Institutional Monitoring Mechanism to ensure full and complete compliance of not only the directions which have already been passed, but also those directions which may be passed by this Court in the future as well."

The court has issued periodical orders in this case on training public prosecutors, inclusion of Satender Kumar Antil and Siddharth v State of UP (2022) judgments of Supreme Court in curriculum of State Judicial Academies, application of Satender Kumar Antil judgment on Section 438 CrPC and on undertrial prisoners on February 3, March 21, and May 2, 2023, and February 13, respectively.

The bench also found that February 13 order relating to undertrial prisoners has also not been complied with.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who is the amicus in this case, informed the bench that despite the undertrial prisoners been enlarged on bail, they remain in custody since no family member or friend is coming forward to stand as surety or furnish bonds on their behalf. On this, the court noted that the situation undertrial prisoners remains 'palpable'.

Therefore, it directed:

1. All High Courts, States and Union Territories must ensure compliance with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for undertrial prisoners issued vide order dated February 13. This is respective of those cases where no family member or friend is coming forward to stand as surety or furnish a bond.

The SOP titled 'Guidelines and standard operating procedure for implementation of the scheme for support to poor prisoners' is framed by Union Government. In the February 13 order, the court acknowledged this SOP and passed directions on its compliance.

The specific part of the SOP on undertrial prisoners stated:

  a. If the undertrial is not released from the jail within 7 days from the grant of bail, the jail authority would inform the Secretary, the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA).

  b. Secretary, DLSA would inquire and examine whether the undertrial prisoner is not in a position to furnish financial security.

  c. Secretary, DLSA shall place such cases before the District Level Empowered Committee (comprising District Collector/Magistrate, Secretary DLSA, Superintendent of Prison, Judge incharge of Prison) every 2-3 weeks. 

  d. Upon the recommendation of the District Level Empowered Committee, a financial benefit of Rs. 40,000 would be extended per prisoner and made available to the High Court.

  e. The financial benefit shall not be available to those accused under PMLA, UAPA, or similar laws. 

The court further directed the Union of India to file an affidavit on whether any bail law as sought in Satender Kumar Antil's judgment is contemplated or under consideration.

It also inquired if the government has assessed any requirement of creating special CBI courts in the District to deal with the high pendency of cases based on requisite data.

Case Details: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, Miscellaneous Application No. 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 600

Click Here To Read/Download Order.