SUPREME COURT ASKS STATES TO FILE COMPLIANCE REPORT ON DIRECTIONS IN ‘SATINDER KUMAR ANTIL’ CASE: SECTION 41A CRPC

The Supreme Court in the case Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI observed and has recently asked non-compliant State Governments for filing the compliance reports in the proceedings in Satinder Kumar Antil v. CBI, within two weeks, failing which, the court warned, the respective Home Secretaries would be required to appear personally through virtual mode. Therefore, the court also asked the CBI for filing its compliance report within the said time period.

The compliance report has also not been filed by the CBI The court granted two weeks time to the CBI and the States for filling their compliance report and failing which, their respective Home Secretaries will appear personally through the virtual mode. The bench comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka in the case observed and has passed the order, the court while considering compliance of the State Governments with the judgement of the Apex Court in the case Satinder Kumar Antil, wherein the court had issued elaborate guidelines to ease the process of bail. However, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Amicus Curiae informed the bench that several States are yet to file status reports in the matter. It has also been provided by him a list of non-compliant States which includes as many as 30 states – Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Pondicherry and Ladakh.

At the Outset, the court noted that now turning to the states which are yet to file the compliance report. It appears to the court that hardly any of the states have filed the report. Therefore, the States who have not filed or at least not given a copy to Mr. Sidharth Luthra’s office are thirty in number. The Top Court in the case Satinder Kumar Antil observed that any noncompliance of Section 41 and Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of making arrest would entitle the accused for granting of bail. IT has also been directed by the State Government and the Union Territories to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code. In the said regard, the court had filed a slew of directions. Further, it has been observed by the Supreme Court observed that a separate bail application need not be insisted upon while considering the application under Section 88, Section 170, Section 204 and Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also recommended the Union Government for introducing a special enactment in the nature of a “Bail Act” to streamline the grant of bail to the accused.