"Whether Guidelines Can Be Extended To UTPs Facing Trial For Offences Not Included In Exclusion Clause?": Delhi HC Asks High Powered Committee To Clarify

The Delhi High Court has asked it's High Powered Committee to clarify as to whether the guidelines issued this year can be applied to under trial prisoners who are facing trial for offences not included in the exclusion clause, particularly sec. 364A (Kidnapping for ransom), 394 (Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) etc. of the Indian Penal Code.

While dealing with two bail pleas, Justice Subramonium Prasad came up with the question as to "whether the guidelines issued in 2021 extend the benefit to Under Trial Prisoners who are facing trial for offences under Section 364A, 394, 397 IPC etc. especially when these offences do not figure in the Exclusion Clause."

The confusion arose after the bench perused two orders passed by the High Court while dealing with two applications in which the Court denied interim bail to an accused on the ground that the offence under Section 394 IPC was excluded from the ambit of the HPC guidelines issued in the year 2020. In the other bail plea, the Court had granted benefit of the said guidelines for offences under sec. 302, 392, 397, 411, 120B and 34 of IPC.

"In order to avoid further conflicting orders, this Court deems it appropriate to place the matter before the High Powered Committee to issue appropriate clarifications for the guidance of Benches dealing with application for grant of interim bail to Under Trials facing trial for offences under Section 364A, 394, 397 IPC etc," the Court said.

Coming to the facts of the case, while the first petitioner sought interim bail in an FIR registered against him under sec. 392, 394, 395, 397 and 34 IPC on the ground that his case is covered under HPC guidelines, another petitioner also sought interim bail in an FIR under sec. 395, 397, 365, 412 and 120B of IPC.

The common question which was under consideration before the Court was whether a person who is accused of an offence under Sections 392, 394, 395, 397 and 412 of IPC is entitled to the benefit of the HPC guidelines or not?

According to the petitioners' counsels, it was submitted that if an undertrial prisoner accused under sec. 302 of IPC is entitled for the benefit of HPC guidelines, then a person facing trial under sec. 392, 394, 395, 397 and 412 of IPC must also be granted the same benefit.

On the other hand, relying on the minutes of meetings of the HPC dated 20th June, 2020 and 31st July, 2021, it was submitted by APP that the Committee intentionally omitted the offences like dacoity, robbery, kidnapping for ransom etc., and that the Members of the HPC did not intend to extend the benefit to the persons accused of these offences.

Further perusing the minutes of meeting dated 4th May 2021, the Court said:

"In the High Powered Committee meetings of 2020, clarification had to be sought from the High-Powered Committee, and while deciding the representations, the HPC clarified that offences like dacoity, robbery, kidnapping for ransom were not covered by the HPC guidelines 2020. However, even in 2021, the exclusion clause does not include the offences under Section 364A, 394 and 397 IPC and there is nothing to indicate that decisions taken by the High Powered Committee in the year 2021 are in continuation of the decisions taken by the High-Powered Committee in the year 2020."

Accordingly, in order to resolve the confusion, the Court asked the HPC to issue clarifications for guiding other benches dealing with bail pleas under sec. 364A, 394, 397 IPC etc.

Title: MANISH KUMAR @ MANNY v. THE STATE; AJIT v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Click Here To Read Order