Bombay HC: The Session Judge must frame charge against against the under trial prisoners as early as possible and not beyond the period of six months from the date of filing of the chargesheet

6.5. In the result, all the Sessions Judges/Assistant Sessions Judgesin the State including Union Territories are directed to frame charge against the under trial prisoners as early as possible and not beyond the period of six months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. They shall not wait for draft charge from the office of the Public Prosecutor. The Sessions Judges/Assistant Sessions Judges are at liberty to pass specific orders, if there is/are dilatory tactics on the part of the under trial prisoner to prolong the stage of framing of charge.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1575 OF 2024

Vijay Rajendra Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

 DATED : 17 th OCTOBER, 2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Clean Acquittal Of Accused After Long Undertrial Custody May Give Rise To Claim For Compensation

  There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the Accused after very long incarceration as an under trial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the Accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the Accused Under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024.

Decided On: 26.09.2024

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1065/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Telangana HC: Procedure to be followed by the court when accused files copy of bail order downloaded from E- court Website

 Hence, this Court feels that an alternative mechanism shall be evolved to address the plight of these under-trial prisoners/accused.

(a) Parties/Advocates shall download the order copy from the High Court's Website along with case details which are available in the case status information.

(b) While filing the memo on behalf of accused for furnishing sureties, the Advocate shall state in the Memo that he/she has downloaded the order copy from the High Court's Website. The Administrative Officer/Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court concerned shall verify the order from the High Court's Website and make an endorsement to that effect and then shall place the same before the Court.

(c) The Public Prosecutor shall also obtain necessary instructions in this regard and assist the Court.

(d) The Presiding Officer, on the same day, shall dispose of the same and dispatch the release order to the jail authorities concerned forthwith through e-mail or any other electronic mode.

(e) In cases of anticipatory bail, the burden to verify the authenticity of the copy is on the Station House Officer concerned and if necessary, he should obtain necessary instructions from the Public Prosecutor's Office and complete the process on the same day expeditiously as per law.

(f) The jail authorities on receipt of the release order shall release the accused forthwith. {Para 14}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA

Criminal Petition No. 8108 of 2021

Decided On: 15.11.2021

V. Bharath Kumar Vs. The State of Telangana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Lalitha Kanneganti, J.

Citation: MANU/TL/0912/2021.

Print Page

Whether life convicts are entitled to get benefit of set off U/S 428 CRPC of pre-conviction detention?

 Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been

considered by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Bhagirath & Another –Vs. Delhi Administration (1985 (2) SCC 580), wherein the following statement of law has been made.

“8. To say that a sentence of life imprisonment imposed

upon an accused is a sentence for the term of his life does

offence neither to grammar nor to the common

understanding of the word 'term'. To say otherwise offend

not only against the language of the statute but against the

spirit of the law, that is to say, the object with which the

law was passed. A large number of cases in which the

accused suffer long under trial detentions are cases

punishable with imprisonment for life. Usually' those who

are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life are not

enlarged on bail. To deny the benefit of section 428 to them

is to withdraw the application of a benevolent provision

from a large majority of cases in which such benefit would

be needed and justified………..

13. We would like to add that we find it difficult to agree

 that the expressions

'imprisonment for life' and imprisonment for a term' are

used either in the Penal Code or in the Criminal Procedure

Code in contra-distinction with each other. 

14.4.Thus, in the light of the aforesaid pronouncements and taking note of the underlying object enshrined under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1973, we have no hesitation to hold that 'set off ' is permissible even for a life convict.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

W .A.No .6 67 of 2020 & CMP No.9331 of 2020

& HCP No.959 of 2020

W.A.No.667 of 2020

The Home Secretary (Prison-IV) Vs  A.Palaniswamy @ Palaniappan

CORAM :

 MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

AND

 MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

Delivered on : 05.07.2021

Author: M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

Print Page

Whether court can release convict on bail during the pendency of a criminal appeal as per S 436-A of CRPC?

In my view, Section 436-A, Cr.P.C. is restricted in

its operation to grant of bail to an under-trial prisoner

‘during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial’ and does

not, ex proprio vigore, apply at the appellate stage. I, thus,

concur with the prima facie view of Their Lordships of the

Hon’ble Division Bench expressed in the order dated

August 14, 2020 as well as the opinion of learned brothers

Deshpande and Shukre, JJ. I also agree with Their Lordships

that the reference ought to be disposed of by answering

the question referred in the negative.

7. Having so answered, I hasten to observe that in a

given situation the spirit of Section 436-A, Cr.P.C. could be

considered by an appellate court while it is seized of an

application under Section 389, Cr.P.C. and, drawing

inspiration from the principle ingrained in the former, to

suspend execution of the sentence bearing in mind all

relevant factors including the time likely to be taken for

disposal of the appeal. The judicial mind in the wise

exercise of discretion and by suitable moderation may

suspend execution of the sentence and grant bail under

Section 389, Cr.P.C., the absence of a provision like Section

436-A, Cr.P.C. in the chapter on appeals notwithstanding. If

any authority is required, one may usefully refer to the

decisions in Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab,

reported in (1977) 4 SCC 291, Babu Singh vs. State of

U.P., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 579, Bhagwan Rama

Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1999) 4

SCC 421, Akhtari Bi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,

reported in (2001) 4 SCC 355, and Suresh Kumar vs.

State [NCT, Delhi], reported in (2001) 10 SCC 338, which

are all decisions prior to the birth of Section 436-A in the

Cr.P.C. delineating factors that a Court ought to take into

account while considering a prayer for bail at the appellate

stage.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATIONN (APPA) NO. 270/2020

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 336/2016

Maksud Sheikh Gaffur Sheikh  Vs  State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, C.J.

R. K. DESHPANDE &

SUNIL B. SHUKRE, JJ.

DATED : 28.08.2020

JUDGMENT (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J)

Print Page

How to grant set off to accused on conviction if he is simultaneously arrested and detained in two or more cases?

Various High Courts have expressed on this question. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court has dissented from a contrary view taken by a Single Judge of that High Court and held in K.C. Das vs. The State (1979 Criminal Law Journal

362) that the statute does not make any distinction between the first case and the second case for application of Section 428 of the Code. A Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati in Lalrinfela vs. State of Mizoram and ors. (1982 Criminal Law Journal 1793) has adopted the same view. Lahiri and Hansaria, JJ, said in the said decision that if the accused is simultaneously arrested and detained in two or more cases and on conviction obtains set off for the period of his detention in the first case he is not ineligible to obtain set off for the period in the subsequent cases; in each case the court is to count the number of days the accused was in such detention separately and the liability to undergo imprisonment on conviction should be restricted to the remainder of the terms of the imprisonment imposed on him in that case.

A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gedala Ramulu Naidu vs. State of A.P. and anr. (1982 Criminal Law Journal 2186) and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Chinnasamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors. (1984 Criminal Law Journal 447) have also adopted the same view in tune with the interpretation given by us. While speaking for the Division Bench of the Madras High Natarajan, J (as he then was) has made a survey of most of the decisions thus far rendered by different High Courts and opted to flow with the view adopted by all the other High Courts almost uniformly.

We have no reason to think that the High Courts mentioned above have gone wrong in taking the view that Section 428 of the Code permits the accused to have the period undergone by him in jail as an under-trial prisoner set off against the period of sentence imposed on him irrespective of whether he was in jail in connection with the same case during that period. We therefore, respectfully dissent from the view expressed by the two Judge Bench of this Court in Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana(supra).

Supreme Court of India

State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali on 9 May, 2001

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Citation:AIR 2001 SC 2255

Print Page

Guidelines of Supreme court in respect of under trial prisoners

 In a similar vein, it has been said, with a view to transform
prisons and prison culture:
“Treating prisoners not as objects, but as the human
beings they are, no matter how despicable their prior
actions, will demonstrate an unflagging commitment
to human dignity. It is that commitment to human
dignity that will, in the end, be the essential
underpinning of any endeavor to transform prison
cultures.”9
56. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that
prisoners, like all human beings, deserve to be treated with dignity.
8 Vivien Stern, A Sin Against the Future: Imprisonment in the World 192 (1998).
9 The Mess We’re In: Five Steps Towards the Transformation of Prison Cultures by Lynn
S. Branham, Indiana Law Review, Vol. 44, p. 703, 2011
To give effect to this, some positive directions need to be issued by
this Court and these are as follows:
1. The Under Trial Review Committee in every district should
meet every quarter and the first such meeting should take
place on or before 31st March, 2016. The Secretary of the
District Legal Services Committee should attend each
meeting of the Under Trial Review Committee and follow
up the discussions with appropriate steps for the release
of undertrial prisoners and convicts who have undergone
their sentence or are entitled to release because of
remission granted to them.
2. The Under Trial Review Committee should specifically look
into aspects pertaining to effective implementation of
Section 436 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 436A of the Cr.P.C.
so that undertrial prisoners are released at the earliest
and those who cannot furnish bail bonds due to their
poverty are not subjected to incarceration only for that
reason. The Under Trial Review Committee will also look
into issue of implementation of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 particularly with regard to first time offenders so
that they have a chance of being restored and
rehabilitated in society.
W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013 Page 31 of 343. The Member Secretary of the State Legal Services
Authority of every State will ensure, in coordination with
the Secretary of the District Legal Services Committee in
every district, that an adequate number of competent
lawyers are empanelled to assist undertrial prisoners and
convicts, particularly the poor and indigent, and that legal
aid for the poor does not become poor legal aid.
4. The Secretary of the District Legal Services Committee will
also look into the issue of the release of undertrial
prisoners in compoundable offences, the effort being to
effectively explore the possibility of compounding offences
rather than requiring a trial to take place.
5. The Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police
in-charge of prisons should ensure that there is proper
and effective utilization of available funds so that the living
conditions of the prisoners is commensurate with human
dignity. This also includes the issue of their health,
hygiene, food, clothing, rehabilitation etc.
6. The Ministry of Home Affairs will ensure that the
Management Information System is in place at the earliest
in all the Central and District Jails as well as jails for
women so that there is better and effective management of
W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013 Page 32 of 34the prison and prisoners.
7. The Ministry of Home Affairs will conduct an annual
review of the implementation of the Model Prison Manual
2016 for which considerable efforts have been made not
only by senior officers of the Ministry of Home Affairs but
also persons from civil society. The Model Prison Manual
2016 should not be reduced to yet another document that
might be reviewed only decades later, if at all. The annual
review will also take into consideration the need, if any, of
making changes therein.
8. The Under Trial Review Committee will also look into the
issues raised in the Model Prison Manual 2016 including
regular jail visits as suggested in the said Manual.
We direct accordingly.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.406/2013
RE - INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS
Dated;February 5, 2016
O R D E R
Madan B. Lokur, J.

Print Page