- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- 25 Notable Supreme Court Judgments...
25 Notable Supreme Court Judgments Of 2024 On Bail & Arrest
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
22 Dec 2024 10:58 AM IST
The Supreme Court delivered several notable judgments in 2024 on the parameters for bail and powers of arrest. Underscoring the importance of personal liberty, the Court held that bail cannot be denied citing stringent special law provisions (such as those present in NDPS Act, UAPA, PMLA etc.), when the trial is unduly delayed and the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration.Here is...
The Supreme Court delivered several notable judgments in 2024 on the parameters for bail and powers of arrest. Underscoring the importance of personal liberty, the Court held that bail cannot be denied citing stringent special law provisions (such as those present in NDPS Act, UAPA, PMLA etc.), when the trial is unduly delayed and the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration.
Here is a compilation of 25 notable judgments on the topic.
1. UAPA | Mere Delay In Trial No Ground To Grant Bail When Grave Offences Are Involved : Supreme Court
In Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 100, a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar held that mere delay in trial cannot be a ground to grant bail when grave offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are invovled. The bench also observed that the rule "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" was not applicable to UAPA. However, the Supreme Court in later decisions delivered this year disagreed with these views (elaborated below)
Case Title : Shoma Kanti Sen v. State | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 280
Coram : Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice AG Masih
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. State | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376
The Supreme Court opined that an illegal arrest and remand order cannot be validated merely on the ground that a chargesheet has been filed.
“Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.,” held Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
The judgment also held that the dictum in Pankaj Bansal that the grounds of arrest must be given in writing when a person is arrested under the PMLA is applicable to the UAPA as well.
Also from the judgment - 'Grounds Of Arrest' Must Contain All Basic Facts To Provide Opportunity To Accused To Oppose Remand & Seek Bail : Supreme Court
4. ED Cannot Arrest Accused After Special Court Has Taken Cognizance Of PMLA Complaint : Supreme Court
Case Title: Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its officers cannot arrest an accused exercising powers under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after the Special Court has taken cognizance of the complaint of money laundering. Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: ANKUR CHAUDHARY VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 416
The Supreme Court observed that if there's an undue delay in the completion of the trial, then there would be no impediment to consider the grant of bail to the accused under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act despite not meeting the stringent test under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Case Title – Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 441
The Supreme Court held that there cannot be a bail condition that enables the police to constantly track the movements of the accused and virtually peep into the privacy of the accused.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was examining whether a bail condition requiring an accused to drop a pin on Google Maps for the investigating officer to access his location violates a person's right to privacy.
Also from the judgment- Court Need Not Always Impose Bail Condition Requiring Foreign Accused To Obtain Embassy's Assurance On Not Leaving India: Supreme Court
Case Title : Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 463
Coram : Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
While granting interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on July 12, the Supreme Court observed that arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be made simply for the purposes of investigation. Rather, the power can be exercised only when the concerned officer is able to form an opinion, based on material in possession, and upon recording reasons in writing, that the arrestee is guilty.
Case Title – Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 486
Coram : Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
In a significant judgment granting bail to an undertrial prisoner facing charges under the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967(UAPA), the Supreme Court held that a constitutional court can grant bail despite statutory restrictions if it finds that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed.
Also from the judgment - UAPA | 'Watali' Judgment Not A Precedent to Deny Bail To Undertrial In Long Custody With No End In Sight Of Trial: Supreme Court
Case Title – Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement. | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 502
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court (July 23) held that bail orders should not be normally stayed. Setting aside an order of the Delhi High Court which stayed the bail granted in a money laundering case, the Court stated that bail orders can be stayed only in exceptional circumstances.
"However, an order granting a stay to the operation of the order granting bail during the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail should be passed in very rare cases. The reason is that when an undertrial is ordered to be released on bail, his liberty is restored, which cannot be easily taken away for the asking. The undertrial is not a convict. An interim relief can be granted in the aid of the final relief, which could be finally granted in proceedings"
Case : Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement |2024 LiveLaw (SC) 563
While allowing the bail plea of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in relation to the liquor policy case, the Supreme Court today lamented that Trial Courts and High Courts in the country have forgotten the principle that 'bail is the rule, jail an exception' and attempt to play safe.
"From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial Courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in the matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal an exception is at times followed in breach...on account of non-grant of bail, even in open-and-shut cases, this court is getting huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial Courts and the high Courts should recognise that bail is the rule and jail an exception", said the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
Also from the judgment - Right To Bail Should Be Read Into S.45 PMLA When Accused Has Spent Long Time In Custody & There's Delay In Trial : Supreme Court
11.'Bail Is The Rule, Jail Is The Exception' Even In Special Statutes Like UAPA : Supreme Court
Case Title – Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 571
The Supreme Court held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.
If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted, a bench of Justices AS Oka and AG Masih held.
Also from the judgment - 'NIA Owes An Explanation' : Supreme Court Flags Discrepancy Between Witness Statement Narrated In Chargesheet & Actual Statement
Case Details: Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 593
The Supreme Court held that if an accused, involved in multiple cases, is enlarged on bail and is unable to find multiple sureties, the court must balance the requirement of sureties with his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
In this case, the court found that the petitioner, despite securing bail in 13 cases registered across various states, experienced a 'genuine' difficulty in finding multiple sureties, because of which he continued to be incarcerated.
Taking note of the situation, the bench of Justice BR Gavai and KV Viswananthan observed : "Sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused, released on bail. At the same time, where the court is faced with the situation where the accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
Case : Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 694
While granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal in the CBI case arising out of the liquor policy 'scam', the Supreme Court today rejected the CBI's contention that Kejriwal ought to be relegated to the trial Court for relief. This view was taken as the High Court did not send Kejriwal back to the trial Court at the initial stage and seemingly heard the case on merits.
"If an accused approaches the High Court directly without first seeking relief from the Trial Court, it is generally appropriate for the High Court to redirect them to the Trial Court at the threshold. Nevertheless, if there are significant delays following notice, it may not be prudent to relegate the matter to the Trial Court at a later stage. Bail being closely tied to personal liberty, such claims should be adjudicated promptly on their merits, rather than oscillating between courts on mere procedural technicalities", said the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in his judgment.
Case Details: V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 750
The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial.
A bench on Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial.
The Supreme Court held that the High Courts cannot defer the execution of bail order by deferring the furnishing of bail bonds after a particular period.
Case : Jitendra Paswan Satya Mitra v. State of Bihar | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 655
The Supreme Court ruled that once a court concludes that an accused is entitled to bail, it cannot delay the implementation of the bail order, as doing so may violate the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih deleted the condition imposed by Patna High Court while granting bail to an accused that the bail order will be executed after six months. The HC in the impugned judgment did not provide any reason for imposing such a condition.
Case : Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. State of Maharashtra | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 715
The Supreme Court directed the release of a POCSO convict who continued to remain in custody despite a bail order passed in May 2024. The petitioner had been unable to secure release due to his inability to furnish local surety.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti noted that continuing to keep him in custody despite a bail order would violate his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
18. Bail Cannot Be Denied On The Ground That Trial Is Expedited: Supreme Court
Case : Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal
The Supreme Court emphasized that bail cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the trial will be expedited.
19. Supreme Court Directs All High Courts To Expeditiously Decide Bail Applications
Case Details: RAJANTI DEVI @ RAJANTI KUMARI VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 50
The Supreme Court in a order directed all the courts to scrupulously follow the directions/guidelines issued by it for the expeditious delivery of judgments and disposal of the bail applications.
A bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma directed that High Courts should scrupulously follow the directions/ guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in various decisions.
Case : JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 437
Chastising the National Investigating Agency for delaying the trial in a case under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, the Supreme Court stated that if the prosecuting agency cannot protect the right to speedy trial of an accused, then they cannot oppose his bail application on the ground that the offence was serious.
"Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India," observed the Court while granting bail to a man, who has been under custody since February 2020 in a case over alleged smuggling of counterfeit Indian currencies from Pakistan.
Case Title: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 632
In a significant development, the Supreme Court held that Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - the replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure- would apply retrospectively to the undertrials across the country. It means that the provision will apply to all undertrials in cases was registered before July 1, 2024.
As per Section 479 BNSS, undertrials can be released on bail if they have undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law.
22. Non-Compliance Of S.52A NDPS Act Not Ground For Bail; Irregular Seizure Won't Make Evidence Inadmissible: Supreme Court
Case Title : NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU v KASHIF
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1033
The Supreme Court (December 20) overturned the judgment of the Delhi High Court which held that the procedure mandated under Section 52A is mandatory. The Court held that the purpose of the insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized narcotics drugs or psychotropic substances was to ensure the early disposal of seized contraband and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and give effect to the international Conventions.
Any prima facie delay or lapse in compliance of Section 52A by itself would not be a ground to release the accused on bail unless the conditions mandated under Section 37(1)(b) have been found to have been satisfied, the Court held.
Case : X v. State of Rajasthan
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 949
The Supreme Court has observed that in serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc., bail applications of the accused should not be ordinarily entertained by the Trial Courts and the High Courts.
"Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused," observed a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.
"It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed," the bench added.
Case : Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 936
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 25) granted bail to a man accused of counterfeiting currency who had been incarcerated for two years and six months invoking the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih emphasized that High Courts should not impose time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials when rejecting bail applications.
“Before we part with this order, we have noticed in several orders passed by different High Courts that while rejecting applications for bail in the routine manner the High Courts are fixing time bound schedule for the conclusion of trials. Such directions affect the functioning of the trial courts as in many trial courts there are very old cases pending for disposal. After rejecting the prayer for bail the courts cannot provide some kind of a satisfaction to the accused by fixing time bound schedule for the trial”, the Court observed.
25. Undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention
Case : PARTHA CHATTERJEE Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 987
While granting bail to ex-WB minister Partha Chatterjee, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that "a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention."
"The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial," observed a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Also Read - 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2024 - Part 1 [1-25]
