Case Name : Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Another Case Reference: (2022) 10 SCR 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 Case Number: MA 1849/2021 in SLP Crl 5191/2021 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 02 Coram: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, MM Sundresh (Author) Date: 11.07.2022
Definition of Trial
Though the word “trial” is not explained and defined under the CrPC; and extended meaning has to be given to it for the purpose of enlargement on bail to include the stage of investigation and thereafter.
In the stage of investigation An arrest followed by a police custody may be warranted for a thorough investigation
After stage of investigation What matters substantially is the proceedings before the court in the form of a trial; the consequence to be drawn is for a more favourable consideration towards enlargement when investigation is completed.
An appeal or revision shall also be construed as a facet of trial when it comes to consideration of bail on suspension of sentence.
Definition of Bail
Bail is nothing but a surety inclusive of a personal bond from the accused and means the release of an accused person either by the orders of the court or by the police or by the investigating agency.
It is a set of pre-trial restrictions imposed on a suspect.
It is a conditional release on the solemn undertaking by the suspect that he would co-operate with both the investigation and the trial.
`Presumption of innocence
Presumption of innocence is a facet of Constitution - Article 21 and shall enure to the benefit of the accused. The burden is placed on the prosecution to prove the charges to the court of law. Weightage of evidence has to be assessed on the principle of beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 41 CrPC - Arrest
Even for cognizable offence, arrest is not mandatory.
Non-compliance of CrPC - Section 41 will entitle the accused to grant of bail.
Section 41 and CrPC - Section 41A are facets of Constitution - Article 21.
Anticipatory Bail
To be decided within six weeks (Para 73(k))
Refer also: Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1 Gurbkash Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The proper test to be applied is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. It is thus clear that that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail KN Joglekar vs Emperor, AIR 1931 All 504 : The wide powers to grant bail under CrPC - Section 439 are not handicapped by the preceding CrPC - Section 437. There is no hard-and-fast rule and no inflexible principle governing exercise of discretion conferred by CrPC - Section 439. Emperor vs HL Hutchinson, AIR 1931 All 356 : The principles to be deduced from the various sections in CrPC was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody A presumably innocent person is entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case and must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence. Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240: Personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of “procedure established by law” The last four words of Constitution - Article 21 are the life of that human right. Sanjau Chandra vs CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: THe object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts must owe more than verbal respect to principle that punishment begins after conviction and every person is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial can be a cause of great hardship. The operative test of holding un-convicted persons in custody is of “necessity”. Any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content. It would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
See also: Constitution - Article 21 CrPC - Section 41 CrPC - Section 439 CrPC - Section 437
PDF: Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI, MA 1849-2021 in SLP Crl 5191-2021 (SC).pdf