Law And Order Criminal Intent Cancelled - Right To Bail In India
Hi friends. Now, I found out about Law And Order Criminal Intent Cancelled - Right To Bail In India. Which may be very helpful for me so you. Right To Bail In IndiaIntroduction
What I said. It isn't the final outcome that the true about Law And Order Criminal Intent Cancelled. You check this out article for info on that wish to know is Law And Order Criminal Intent Cancelled.Law And Order Criminal Intent Cancelled
When you are arrested, you are taken into custody. This means that you are not free to leave the scene. Without being arrested, you can be detained, however, or held for questioning for a short time if a police officer or other man believes you may be complex in a crime. For example, an officer may detain you if you are carrying a large box near a burglary site. You can also be detained by storekeepers if they fancy you have stolen something. Whether you are arrested or detained, you do not have to respond any questions except to give your name and address and show some identification if requested. The object of arrest and detention of the accessed man is primarily to get his appearance at the trial and to ensure that in case he is found guilty he is ready to receive the sentence. If his nearnessy at the trial could be inexpensive ensured otherwise than by his arrest and detention, it would be unjust and unfair to deprive the accused of his liberty while the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him. The provisions with regard to the issue of summons or those relating to the arrest of the accessed man under a certify or without a certify or those relating to the release of the accessed at his trial but without unreasonable and unjustifiably interfering with his liberty. Thus this report is related with the provisions related with the release of a man on a bail.
In words of Krishna Iyer J. .. The subject of bail:-
" ..... Belongs to the blurred area of criminal justice theory and largely hinges on the hunch of the bench, otherwise called judicial discretion. The Code is cryptic on this topic and the Court prefers to be tacit, be the order custodial or not. And yet, the issue is one of liberty, justice, public protection and burden of public treasury all of which insist that a industrialized jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process."
Thus release on bail is crucial to the accused as the consequences of pre-trial detention are given. If release on bail is denied to the accessed it would mean that though he is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved beyond the inexpensive doubt he would be subjected to the psychological and corporal deprivation of jail life. The jail accessed loses his job and is prevented from contributing effectively to the preparing of his defense.
Therefore where there are no risks complex in the release of the arrested man it would be cruel and unjust, to deny him bail. The law bails " has to dovetail two conflicting demands namely, on one hand, the requirements of the community for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a man alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence. The presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty".
In order to sub serve the above said objective, the Legislature in its wisdom has given exact directions for granting or granting bail.
Why Bail?
Before beyond doubt determining the place of bail within human possession framework as conferred by the Constitution, it is prominent to contemplate the object and meaning of bail, such that an diagnosis of these fundamental objects and convert therein may review a change. The object detention of an accused man is primarily to get her/his appearance at the time of trial and is ready to receive sentence, in case found guilty. If his/her nearnessy at the trial could be reasonably ensured other than by his arrest or detention, it would be unjust and unfair to deprive the accused of his liberty while pendency of criminal proceedings.
Thus it is prominent to note the relevant provisions enshrined in the Universal proclamation of Human Rights:-
Article 9- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10- everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the measurement of his possession and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11(1)- everyone expensed with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty agreeing to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
There are thus several reasons which have been enumerated as to why bail ought to be allowed to forestall pre-trial detention
Meaning Of Bail
Bail, in law, means procurement of release from prison of a man awaiting trial or an appeal, by the deposit of protection to ensure his submission at the required time to legal authority.
"Bail has been defined in the law lexicon as protection for the appearance of the accused man on giving which he is released pending trial or investigation."
According to Black's Law Dictionary, what is contemplated by bail is to "procure the release of a man from legal custody, by undertaking that he/she shall appear at the time and place designated and submit him/herself to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court.".
Meaning Of Bail In India
According to Criminal course Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. Hereinafter), does not define bail, although the terms bailable offense and non-bailable offense have been defined in section 2(a) Cr.P.C. As follows: " Bailable offense means an offense which is shown as bailable in the First program or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being enforce, and non-bailable offense means any other offense". That program refers to all the offenses under the Indian Penal Code and puts them into bailable and on bailable categories. The diagnosis of the relevant provisions of the program would show that the basis of this categorization rests on diverse consideration. However, it can be generally stated that all serious offenses, i.e. Offenses punishable with imprisonment for three years or more have seen thought about as non bailable offenses. Further, Sections 436 to 450 set out the provisions for the grant of bail and bonds in criminal cases. The whole of protection that is to be paid by the accused to get his release has not been mentioned in the Cr.P.C. Thus, it is the discretion of the court to put a monetary cap on the bond.
Indian Courts however ,have greater discretion to grant or deny bail in the case of persons under criminal arrest, e.g., it is commonly refused when the accused is expensed with homicide.
It must be further noted that a man accused of a bailable offenses is arrested or detained without certify he has a right to be released on bail. But if the offense is non-bailable that does not mean that the man accused of such offense shall not be released on bail: but here in such case bail is not a matter of right, but only a privilege to be granted at the discretion of the court.
Provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, makes provisions for release of accused persons on bail. Section 436 of the Code provides for release on bail in cases of bailable offenses. Section 436 provides that when man not accused of a non-bailable offense is arrested or detained he can be detained as right to claim to be released on bail. The section covers all cases of man s accused of bailable of fences cases of persons though not accused of any offense but against whom protection proceedings have been initiated under episode Viii of the Code and other cases of arrest and detention which are not in respect of any bailable offense.
This section entitles a man other than the accused of a non-bailable offense to be released on bail, it may be recalled that S. 50(2) makes it obligatory for a police officer prevention such a man without a certify to familiarize him his right to be released on bail.
Section 436 (1) of the Code signifies that release on bail is a matter of right, or in other words, the officer-in-charge of a police hub or any court does not have any discretion whatsoever to deny bail in such cases. The word " appear in this sub- clause is wide sufficient to comprise voluntary appearance of the man accused of an offense even where no summons or certify has been issued against him. There is nothing in S. 436 to exclude voluntary appearance or to recommend that the appearance of the accused must be in the obedience of a process issued by the court. The surrender and the corporal nearnessy of the accused with the submission to the jurisdiction and order of the court is judicial custody, and the accused may be granted bail and released from such custody.
The right to be released on bail under S. 436(1) cannot be nullified indirectly by fixing too high whole of bond or bail-bond to be yield by the man seeking bail. Section 440(1) provides the whole of every bond executed under this episode shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case, and shall not be excessive. further S. 440(2) empowers the High Court or the Court of Sessions may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced.
Sub-section (2) of S. 436 makes a provision to follow that a man who absconds or has broken the health of his bail bond when released on bail is a bailable case on a old occasion, shall not as of right to be entitled to bail when brought before the court on any subsequent date even though the offense may be bailable.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 Scr 621
The whole of the bond should be thought about having regard to these relevant factors and should not be fixed mechanically agreeing to a program keyed to the nature of the charge. Otherwise, it would be difficult for the accused to get his release even by executing a personal bond, it would be very harsh and laberious if he is required to satisfy the court-and what is said in regard to the court must apply equally in relation to the police while granting bail-that he is solvent sufficient to pay the whole of the bond if he fails to appear at the trial and in consequence the bond is forfeited. The inquiry into the solvency of the accused can come to be a source of great harassment to him and often resulting denial of bail and deprivation of liberty and should not, therefore, be insisted upon as a health of acceptance of the personal bond.
It also stated that there is a need to provide by an amendment of the penal law that if an accused willfully fails to appear incompliance with the promise contained in his personal bond, he shall be liable to penal action.
J. Per Bhagwati & Koshal, Jj. further observed that it is now high time that the State Government realized its responsibility to the citizen in the matter of management of justice and set up more courts for the trial of cases.
In Moti Ram & Others. V. State of M.P [1978] 4 Scc 47
Urgent need for a clear and explicit provision in the Code of Criminal course enabling the release, inappropriate cases, of an under trial prisoner on his bond without sureties and without any monetary obligation.
Criminal courts today, are highly unsatisfactory and needs drastic change. In the first place it is virtually impossible to translate risk of non- appearance by the accused into exact monetary terms and even its basic factory that risk of financial loss is necessary to forestall the accused from fleeing is of doubtful validity. There are several considerations which deter an accused from running away from justice and risk of financial loss is only one of them and that too not a major one. In this case the court also pointed out the enlightened Bail Projects in the United States such as Manhattan Bail task and D. C. Bail task shows that even without monetary bail it has been possible to get the nearnessy of the accused at the trial in quite a large whole of cases. The Court laid down following guidelines, that rule Whether the accused has his roots in the community which would deter him from fleeing, the Court should take into account the following factors with regard to the accused:
1. The length of his house in the community, 2 His employment status, history and his financial condition, 3. His house ties and relationships, 4 His reputation, character and monetary condition, 5.His prior criminal report along with any report or prior release on recognizance or on bail, 6. The identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for his reliability. The nature of the offense expensed and the apparent probability of conviction and the likely sentence in so far as these factors are relevant to the risk of non appearance, and If the court is satisfied on a consideration of the relevant factors that the accused has his ties in the community and there is no great risk of non-appearance, the accused may, as far as possible, be released on his personal bond.
Of course, if facts are brought to the consideration of the court which go to show that having regard to the health and background of the accused his old report and the nature and circumstances of the offense, there may be a great risk of his non-appearance at the trial, as for example, where the accused is a notorious bad character or confirmed criminal or the offense is serious (these examples are only by way of illustration), the court may not release the accused on his personal bond and may insist on bail with sureties. But in the majority of cases, considerations like house ties and relationship, roots in the community, employment status etc. may prevail with the court in releasing the accused on his personal bond and particularly in cases where the offense is not grave and the accused is poor or belongs to a weaker section of the community, release on personal bond could, as far as possible, be preferred. But even while releasing the accused on personal bond it is necessary to caution the court that the whole of the bond which it.
Section 436A . Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained -
The new provision Section 436Awas introduced in order to solve the problems of undertrials' who were languishing in jails as they will now be given an opportunity to be set free instead of endlessly waiting for their trial to take place. This move has been made due to a faulty criminal justice theory and provides a makeshift method of providing justice and relief to undertrial prisoners. This seems to recommend that the Legislature and the Government have standard the existence of the faulty theory and their inability to do anyone about it. For this purpose section 436 A was inserted.
According to S. 436-A, a man who has undergone detention for a period extending upto half of the maximum period of imprisonment imposed for a particular offense, shall be released on her/his personal bond with or without sureties. The course provided is that the Court has to hear the public Prosecutor and give its decision with reasons in writing. The Court may release the applicant, or if not satisfied may order for the prolonged detention of the applicant. However, no prisoner can be detained for a period longer than the maximum period of imprisonment provided. The irregularity to the section is that it is not applicable to offenders who have been sentenced to death.
Moving onto the (de)merits of the provisions itself, S. 436-A gives discretion to the Court to set the prisoner free or to make him/her continue imprisonment. There is no mention of any applications having to be filed under the section. The first part of the section states that any prisoner who has served more than half the term of his/her imprisonment 'shall' be released. However, the proviso puts a restriction on the mandatory provision by giving discretionary powers to the courts. This raises questions with regard to the implementation of the provision. There is every opportunity that a prisoner may be sent back to jail to serve a period longer than the half term of his/her sentence. Till the Judges give their written reasons for the same, one will not know on what grounds a continuation of the term can be ordered as the section does not provide any guidelines. Will the undertrial prisoner continue to serve term till the maximum period of the
Granting of Bail with conditions
Section 437 of the Code provides for release on bail in cases of non-bailable offenses. In such cases, bail is not a matter of right. Court has sufficient discretion to deny or to grant bail. First program to the Code provides the list of bailable and non-bailable offenses. further cases often arise under S. 437, where though the court regards the case as fit for the grant of bail, it regards imposition of certain conditions as necessary in the circumstances. To meet this need sub-section (3) of S. 437 provides:
When a man accused or suspected of the commission of an offense punishable with imprisonment which may expand to seven years or more or of an offense under episode Vi, episode Xvi or episode Xvii of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abatement of, or conspiracy or endeavor to commit, any such offense, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court may enforce any health which the Court considers necessary: -
(a)In order to ensure that such man shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or (b)In order to ensure that such man shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or (c)Otherwise in the interests of Justice.
It will be noticed that: -
1)The power to enforce conditions has been given to the court and not to any police officer 2)The power to enforce conditions can only be exercised -
i)Where the offence is punishable with the imprisonment which may expand to seven years or more or
ii)Where the offence is one under episode Vi (Offences against the State), episode Xvi (offences against the human body), or episode Xvii (offences against the property) of I.P.C, or
iii)Where the offence is one of the abetment of or conspiracy to or endeavor to commit any such offence as mentioned above in (i) and (ii).
Cancellation Of Bail
According to S. 437(5) any court which has released a man on bail under (1) or sub sec (2) of S. 437 may if considers it necessary so to do, direct that such man be arrested and committed to custody.
The power to cancel bail has been given to the court and not to a police officer. Secondly, the court which granted the bail can alone cancel it. The bail granted by a police officer cannot be cancelled by the court of a magistrate. For cancellation of bail in such a situation, the powers of the High Court or Court of Session under S. 439 will have to invoked. Rejection of bail when bails applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable cases than to cancel a bail granted in such case. Cancellation of bail necessary involves the review of a decision already made and can large be permitted only if , by fancy of supervening circumstances it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to support his freedom while the trial. However, bail granted illegal or improperly by a wrong arbitrary practice of judicial discretion can be cancelled even if there is absence of supervening circumstances. If there is no material to prove that the accused abused his freedom court may not cancel the bail.
In public Prosecutor v. George Williams1951 Mad 1042
The Madras High Court pointed out five cases where a man granted bail may have the bail cancelled and be recommitted to jail:
(a)Where the man on bail, while the period of the bail, commits the very same offence for which is being tried or has been convicted, and thereby proves his utter unfitness to be on bail; (b)If he hampers the investigation as will be the case if he, when on bail; forcibly prevents the hunt of place under his operate for the corpus delicti or other incriminating things; (c)If he tampers with the evidence, as by intimidating the prosecution witness, interfering with scene of the offence in order to take off traces or proofs of crime, etc. (d)If he runs away to a foreign country, or goes underground, or beyond the operate of his sureties; and (e)If he commits acts of violence, in revenge, against the police and the prosecution witnessed & those who have booked him or are trying to book him.
Right To Bail And report 21'S Right To Personal Liberty
The right to bail is concomitant of the accusatorial system, which favours a bail theory that generally enables a man to stay out of jail until a trial has found him/her guilty. In India, bail or release on personal recognizance is ready as a right in bailable offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment and only to women and children in non-bailable offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. The right of police to oppose bail, the absence of legal aid for the poor and the right to rapid cut to vanishing point the classification of offences into bailable and non-bailable and make the prolonged incarceration of the poor certain while the pendency of investigation by the police and trial by a court.
The fact that under trials formed 80 percent of Bihar's prison population, their period of imprisonment ranging from a dew months to ten years; some cases wherein the period of imprisonment of the under trials exceeded the period of imprisonment prescribed for the offences they were expensed with- these appalling outrages were brought before the consummate Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar Air 1979 Sc 1360
Justice Bhagwati found that these unfortunate under trials languished in prisons not because they were guilty but because they were too poor to afford a bail. In Mantoo Majumdar v. State of Bihar Air 1980 Sc 846 the Apex Court once again upheld the under trials right to personal liberty and ordered the release of the petitioners on their own bond and without sureties as they had spent six years awaiting their trial, in prison. The court deplored the delay in police investigation and the mechanical execution of the remand process by the magistrates insensitive to the personal liberty of the under trials, remanded by them to prison. The Court deplored the delay in police investigation and the mechanical execution of the remand process by the magistrates insensitive to the personal liberty of under trials, and the magistrate failure to monitor the detention of the under trials remanded by them to prison.
The travails of illegal detainees languishing in prisons, who were uniformed, or too poor to avail of, their right bail under section 167 Cr.P.C. Was further brought to light in letters written to Justice Bhagwati by the Hazaribagh Free Legal Aid Committee in Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar (1982) 2 Scc 583. The court recognized the inequitable execution of the law and condemned it- "The rule of law does not exist merely for those who have the means to fight for their possession and very often for perpetuation of status quo... But it exist also for the poor and the downtrodden... And it is solemn duty of the court to safe and uphold the basic human possession of the weaker section of the society. Thus having discussed assorted hardships of pre-trial detention caused, due to unaffordability of bail and unawareness of their right to bail, to under trials and as such violation of their right to personal liberty and rapid trial under report 21 as well as the obligation of the court to ensure such right. It becomes imperative to discuss the right to bail and its nexus to the right of free legal aid to ensure the old under the Constitution- in order to sensitize the rule of law of bail to the demands of the majority of poor and to make human possession of the weaker sections a reality.
Right To Bail And Right To Free Legal Aid -:
Articles 21 And 22 Read With report 39A
Article 21 of the Constitution is said to enshrine the most prominent human possession in criminal jurisprudence. The consummate Court had for practically 27 years after the enactment of the Constitution taken the view that this report merely embodied a facet of the Dicey on conception of the rule of law that no one can deprived of his life and personal liberty by the administrative activity unsupported by law. If there was a law which provided some sort of procedure, it was sufficient to deprive a man of his life and personal liberty.
In the Indian Constitution there is no specifically enumerated constitutional right to legal aid for an accused person. report 22(1) does provide that no man who is arrested shall be denied the right to consult and to be defended by legal practitioner of his choice, but agreeing to the interpretation located on this provision by the consummate Court Janardhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad, Air 1951 Sc 227. In this provision does not carry with it the right to be provided the services of legal practitioners at state cost. Also report 39-A introduced in 1976 enacts a mandate that the state shall provide free legal assistance by favorable legislations or schemes or any other way, to ensure that opportunities for justice are not denied to any citizen by fancy of economic or other disabilities - this however remains a Directive Principle of State course which while laying down an obligation on the State does not lay down an obligation enforceable in Court of law and does not give a constitutional right on the accused to get free legal assistance.
However the consummate Court filled up this constitutional gap straight through creative judicial interpretation of report 21 following Maneka Gandhi's case. The consummate Court held in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra a Air 1978 Sc 1548nd Hussainara Khatoon's case that a course which does not make legal services ready to an accused man who is too poor to afford a lawyer and who would, therefore go straight through the trial without legal aid cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair and just. It is necessary ingredient of reasonable, fair and just course guaranteed under report 21 that a prisoner who is to seek his liberation straight through the court process should have legal services made ready to him.
The right to free legal aid is an necessary element of any reasonable, fair and just course for a man accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the certify of report 21.
Thus the consummate Court spelt out the right to legal aid in criminal proceeding within the language of report 21 and held that this is....
"a constitutional right of every accused man who is unable to engage a lawyer and get legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused man if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so require, provided of course the accused man does not object to the provision of such lawyer."
Conclusion
It is indisputable that an unnecessarily prolonged detention in prison of under trials before being brought to trial is an affront to all civilized norms of human liberty and any meaningful conception of private liberty which forms the bedrock of a civilized legal theory must view with distress patently long periods of imprisonment before persons awaiting trial can receive the concentration of the management of justice. Thus the law of bails must continue to allow for sufficient discretion, in all cases, to forestall a miscarriage of justice and to give way to the humanization of criminal justice theory and to sensitize the same to the needs of those who must otherwise be condemned to languish in prisons for no more fault other than their inability to pay for legal counsel to recommend them on bail matters or to yield the bail whole itself.
While concluding, it seems desirable to draw concentration to the absence of an explicit provision in the Code of Criminal course enabling the release, in standard cases, of an under trial prisoner on his bond without sureties and without any monetary obligation. There is urgent need for a clear provision. Undeniably, the thousands of under trial prisoners lodged in Indian prisons today comprise many who are unable to get their release before trial because of their inability to yield sufficient financial certify for their appearance. Where that is the only fancy for their prolonged incarceration, there may be good ground for complaining of invidious discrimination. The more so under a constitutional theory which promises public equality and public justice to all of its citizens. The deprivation of liberty for the fancy of financial poverty only is an incongruous element in a community aspiring to the achievement of these constitutional objectives. There are sufficient guarantees for appearance in the host of considerations to which reference has been made earlier and, it seems to me, our law-makers would take an prominent step-in defence of private liberty if standard provision as made in the statute for non-financial releases.
By Sudershani Ray
I hope you have new knowledge about Law And Order Criminal Intent Cancelled. Where you possibly can offer utilization in your daily life. And most importantly, your reaction is passed about Law And Order Criminal Intent Cancelled.