Summary
Reviewing compliance with its earlier directions on arrest, bail and undertrial detention, the Court issued state-wise and High Court directions for reporting and implementation. It also placed the Central Government’s scheme for financial support to poor prisoners on record and prescribed a process for identifying eligible prisoners who remain in custody because they cannot meet bail conditions.
Issues
- What further steps and reporting were required to implement the Court’s earlier directions on arrest, bail and undertrial detention.
- How poor prisoners unable to meet bail or fine requirements should be identified and considered for financial support.
Provisions considered
- Sections 41 and 41-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973States and the CBI must report cases where the statutory arrest safeguards were not followed and actions taken against responsible officers. (¶¶ D-F, G)
- Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973High Courts were directed to report whether the earlier Satender Kumar Antil directions are being applied to anticipatory-bail petitions. (¶¶ E, F)
- Sections 389(1) and 389(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The poor-prisoner SOP explains when funds advanced to secure release may instead support bail pending appeal after conviction. (¶ I)
Held
- The Amicus report on compliance was accepted. States, Union Territories, High Courts, the Union, CBI and NALSA were directed to file updated compliance affidavits within eight weeks, followed by an Amicus report within two weeks. (¶¶ B-F, G-H)
- States, Union Territories and the CBI must provide information on non-compliance with arrest safeguards, action against erring officers, special courts and prosecutor training; High Courts must report on their assigned bail, judicial training, undertrial and special-court directions. (¶ D-F)
- Under the recorded SOP, a jail authority must notify the DLSA when an undertrial is not released within seven days after bail is granted. The DLSA must assess inability to furnish surety and refer qualifying cases to the district empowered committee for possible financial support, ordinarily up to Rs 40,000 per prisoner. (¶ I)
- The SOP excludes specified categories of accused, including persons accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, PMLA, NDPS Act and UAPA, from this financial benefit. (¶ I)
Result
The matter was listed for phased monitoring. Updated compliance affidavits and a further Amicus report were directed; the support-to-poor-prisoners SOP was recorded for implementation.