Today, the Supreme Court issues notice to the Union of India in response to a legal petition that questions the constitutionality of Section 437A within the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Section 437A relates to the provision that permits individuals facing legal charges to secure their release on bail while their appeal is pending, by providing bail bonds with appropriate sureties.
The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, sought response from the Central government to provide a response to the legal petition. Furthermore, they have also sought the expertise of Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani in addressing this issue.
The petition highlighted a case set by the Allahabad High Court. In the case of Nannu & Ors v State of UP it was determined that when a bond is not provided, but an individual is subsequently acquitted, a personal bond should be deemed sufficient.
The plea also noted that both the Kerala High Court and the Delhi High Court have previously held that the use of the word "shall" in Section 437A should be interpreted as a directive rather than a mandatory requirement.
Further, the plea stated that the provision lacks a sense of proportionality because there may be accused persons who lack financial resources and cannot find sureties. As such, insisting on bail with sureties would only lead to their continued incarceration, the petitioner pointed out.
Additionally, the petitioner pointed out a noteworthy disparity between the time frame for appealing against an acquittal, which is 60 days, and the longer duration stipulated for the continuance of the bond under Section 437A, set at 180 days.
It was further argued that these circumstances collectively demonstrate that the provision not only impedes the smooth operation of the criminal justice system but also infringes upon the fundamental right to liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy