Supreme Court’s 2022 Guidelines on Arrest and Bail in Santender Kumar Case

In the landmark judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) the Supreme Court issued a comprehensive set of guidelines aimed at reforming the process of granting bail, and preventing the unnecessary arrest and incarceration of individuals:

1. The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails.
2. The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar & Anr [AIR 2014 SC 2756]. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.
3. The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.
4. All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 07.02.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7608 of 2018 and the standing order issued by the Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41A of the Code.
5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.
6. There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this court in Siddharth v The State Of Uttar Pradesh (2021).
7. The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously.
8. The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the under trial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release.
9. While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind.
10. An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by this Court in Prof. Bhim Singh v. Union Of India Union Home Secretary (2014).
11. Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.