Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Free Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur v. State Of Bihar .

Supreme Court Of India

Sep 10, 1981

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion arises from a writ petition that could not be taken up for final hearing before the Dussehra holidays due to lack of time and was therefore adjourned to October 19, 1981. Pending the adjourned hearing, counsel for the petitioner (Mr. Sibal) sought interim directions, which the Court addressed in this order. The order also records issues raised by the petitioner regarding (i) repeated court appearances required of accused persons released on bail in Bihar, (ii) re-arrest of accused upon committal to the Court of Session due to limited bail orders, (iii) compliance by the State with an earlier Court order concerning congestion in Sakchi Jail, Jamshedpur, and (iv) complaints regarding conditions in the General Hospital, Jamshedpur, to be supported by affidavit and responded to by the State.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an accused released on bail can be required to appear periodically in court prior to filing of the charge-sheet and issuance of process by the court.
Whether, in cases triable by the Court of Session, a Magistrate should structure bail bonds so that the accused is not re-arrested upon committal and compelled to seek fresh bail before the Court of Session.
What steps the State Government has taken in compliance with a prior order dated July 25, 1980 (in Writ Petition No. 53 of 1980) suggesting expeditious measures to reduce congestion in Sakchi Jail, Jamshedpur.
Whether any relief should be granted concerning complaints about conditions in the General Hospital in Jamshedpur, after affidavits are filed by the petitioner and the State.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

In many Magistrates' courts in Bihar, accused persons released on bail are required to appear every 14 days even before the charge-sheet is filed, causing harassment; this, according to counsel, is not required by law.
In sessions-triable cases, bail granted by the Magistrate is often limited to the pendency of the enquiry before the Magistrate, leading to re-arrest upon committal and requiring a fresh bail application before the Court of Session, causing inconvenience without corresponding benefit to criminal justice administration.
A prior Bench order (July 25, 1980 in Writ Petition No. 53 of 1980) suggested the State take expeditious measures to reduce jail congestion at Sakchi Jail, Jamshedpur; counsel indicated uncertainty about compliance and sought information.
Counsel drew attention to a journal article alleging poor conditions in the General Hospital, Jamshedpur, and agreed to file an affidavit detailing the complaints.

State of Bihar's Submissions

The State's counsel (Mr. K.G. Bhagat) fairly conceded that the law does not require an accused on bail to appear before the court before the charge-sheet is filed and process issued.
He also agreed that requiring a bond binding the accused to appear before the Court of Session (so as to avoid re-arrest on committal) is a procedure that can legitimately be followed by Magistrates.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first noted the inability to hear the writ petition before the holidays and proceeded to decide the petitioner's request for interim directions.

On the issue of repeated appearances by an accused released on bail prior to filing of the charge-sheet, the Court accepted the petitioner's submission as correct and recorded the State's concession that such appearances are not required by law. On that basis, the Court directed that an accused released on bail need not be required to appear until the charge-sheet is filed and process is issued by the court.

Addressing the problem of re-arrest on committal in sessions-triable cases, the Court identified statutory mechanisms that can avoid this hardship. It referred to Section 441(3) of the CrPC as enabling bail to bind an accused to appear before the Court of Session, and to Section 209(b) of the CrPC as indicating that the Magistrate has discretion to release an accused on bail “during and until completion of trial” even where the offence is triable by the Court of Session. Based on these provisions and the lack of any stated corresponding advantage to the administration of criminal justice from re-arrest, the Court expressed that hardship can be avoided if Magistrates, when granting bail, take a bond (with or without surety as the case may be) binding the accused both for appearances before the Magistrate and, when called upon, before the Court of Session. The Court recorded the State's agreement that this procedure can be followed and expressed an expectation that Magistrates will follow it unless there are particular reasons not to do so.

On jail congestion, the Court noted that an earlier Bench had made an order on July 25, 1980 in Writ Petition No. 53 of 1980 suggesting expeditious measures to reduce congestion in Sakchi Jail, Jamshedpur. Since the Court was not aware of compliance, it directed the State Government to file an affidavit specifying steps taken in compliance since that order, by October 15, 1981, and directed the office to supply a copy of the earlier writ petition to the State's counsel.

On the hospital-conditions complaint, the Court required the petitioner to place the allegations on affidavit and directed a timetable: petitioner's affidavit by September 21, 1981, and the State's reply by October 10, 1981. The Court indicated it would consider, after affidavits, whether any relief should be granted regarding these complaints.

Holding and Implications

ADJOURNED WITH INTERIM DIRECTIONS: The writ petition was adjourned to October 19, 1981, and interim directions were issued concerning bail practice and filing of affidavits.

Direct effect on criminal procedure (as per the order): When an accused is released on bail, the accused need not be required to appear in court until the charge-sheet is filed and process is issued.
In sessions-triable matters, the Court indicated that Magistrates should, to avoid hardship, require execution of a bond (with or without surety as applicable) binding the accused to appear not only before the Magistrate but also before the Court of Session when called upon, so that committal does not lead to re-arrest solely for seeking fresh bail.
The State Government must file an affidavit by October 15, 1981 detailing steps taken to comply with the July 25, 1980 order in Writ Petition No. 53 of 1980 regarding congestion in Sakchi Jail, Jamshedpur.
The petitioner must file an affidavit on hospital-condition complaints by September 21, 1981, and the State must reply by October 10, 1981; the Court will then consider whether any relief is warranted on that aspect.

The opinion does not state any broader implications beyond these interim directions and procedural steps, and it does not indicate that any new precedent was set.

Show all summary ...

1. It is not possible to take up this writ petition for hearing before the Dussehra holidays due to lack of time. We are, therefore, constrained to adjourn it to October 19, 1981. In the meanwhile, Mr Sibal on behalf of the petitioner has applied for certain interim directions and we propose to deal with his application in this order.

2. The first interim direction sought by Mr Sibal is that when an accused is released on bail, he should not be required to appear in court until the charge-sheet is filed and process issued by the court. Mr Sibal states that today what happens in many of the Magistrates' courts in Bihar is that the accused is required to appear before the court every 14 days even though he is on bail and this causes considerable harassment to the accused. He submits and in our opinion rightly that this is not required by law, and Mr K.G Bhagat, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, fairly concedes that law does not require that an accused on bail need appear before the court before the charge-sheet is filed and process issued by the court. We, therefore, direct that whenever an accused is released on bail he need not be required to appear before the court until the charge-sheet is filed and the process is issued by the court. There is also another difficulty pointed out by Mr Sibal and it is that in cases triable by the Court of Session, the practice followed is that when an accused is released on bail by the Magistrate, the bail is granted to him only during the pendency of the enquiry before the Magistrate, with the result that when the case is committed to the Court of Session, he is rearrested and brought before the Court of Session where he has to apply once again for fresh bail. This causes considerable inconvenience to the accused without any corresponding advantage so far as the administration of criminal justice is concerned. This situation can however easily be avoided because there is a provision in Section 441, sub-section (3) of the CrPC under which bail can be granted to an accused so as to bind him to appear before the Court of Session, in which event, on committal, he would not have to be rearrested and brought before the Court of Session. It is also clear from Section 209, clause (b) of the CrPC that the Magistrate has discretion to release the accused on bail “during and until completion of trial” even in cases where the offence is triable by the Court of Session. We, therefore, feel that it would avoid hardship to an accused if the Magistrate, while releasing the accused on bail, requires execution of a bond without surety, as the case may be, binding the accused not only to appear as and when required before him but also to appear when called upon in the Court of Session. Mr K.G Bhagat on behalf of the State of Bihar also agrees that this is a procedure which can be legitimately followed by the Magistrates. We hope and trust that hereafter this procedure will be followed by the Magistrates unless there are any particular reasons for not doing so.

3. Mr Sibal on behalf of the petitioner has also pointed out to us that a Bench of this Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 53 of 1980, made an Order on July 25, 1980 suggesting that the State Government should take expeditious measures for reducing congestion in Sakchi Jail at Jamshedpur. We are not aware whether the State Government has complied with this suggestion made by the Court. We would, therefore, like the State Government to inform us by appropriate affidavit as to what steps have been taken by the State Government in compliance with the order of the Court since the date of making of that Order. This affidavit may be filed by the State Government on or before October 15, 1981. The office will supply a copy of Writ Petition No. 53 of 1980 to the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Government.

4. Lastly, Mr Sibal on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn our attention to an article in a journal complaining about the conditions in the General Hospital in Jamshedpur. We stated to Mr Sibal that the petitioner should file an affidavit in regard to these complaints and Mr Sibal on behalf of the petitioner, has agreed to do so on or before September 21, 1981. The State Government will file a reply to this affidavit on or before October 10, 1981. After the affidavits are filed the Court will consider whether any and if so what relief should be granted to the petitioner with regard to these complaints.

5. The writ petition is adjourned to October 19, 1981.