આરોપી ના જામીન માટે ની – અટક માટેની – સુપિમ કોર્ટની માર્ગદર્શિકા

SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. 

ડાઉનલોડ જજમેન્ટ પી.ડી.એફ. 

નામદાર સુપિમ કોર્ટ એ જામીન માટે ની અટક માટે ની અને અત્યાર સુધી ના તમામ જજમેન્ટ ટાંકી ને એક જજમેન્ટ માં તમામ માર્ગદર્શિકા જાહેર કરી છે. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL; J., M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
July 11, 2022
SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR

The Supreme Court has made it categorical that its judgment in ‘Satender Kumar Antil v Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr’ (2022) is the law of land and the principles laid down by it for bail to an accused, including those not arrested at the time of filing of the charge sheet, must be followed by all concerned courts.

“The judgment of this court including the one in Satender Kumar Antil’s case is the law of the land. There is no question of anyone violating the principles laid down. Suffice for us to say that wherever this judgment is applicable, its principles must be followed,” a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

The court was informed through a number of miscellaneous applications that the judgment and its principles were not being followed.

“We may note that apparently there are large number of cases arising especially in Uttar Pradesh and other States where the grievance made is that the judgment is not being followed. We consider appropriate that this order should be placed before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to ensure there is sufficient dissemination of information about this judgment,” the bench said.

Declining to entertain the pleas, the bench said, “The remedy really lies in pointing out the judgment of this court and inviting an order from the court concerned and if still it is perceived that the judgment is being followed in breach, to agitate their rights in independent proceedings”.

The court also directed its registry not to list such applications in the future.

“We also make it clear that henceforth we will not entertain any such application and the Registry should not list any such application as the purpose of keeping this matter alive is only to see that the implementation takes place in the larger perspective,” the bench said.

Further, going by the reports filed by the high courts, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing as amicus curiae, submitted that there was non-compliance of certain directions in certain districts.

The court asked the high courts to make sure that necessary steps are taken to ensure compliance.

The top court also expressed its dismay over the failure of the Allahabad High Court in filing an affidavit in terms of its previous order.

“The least we expect is that the affidavits will be filed well in time with advance copies to the Amicus so that he can assist the court. This is more so of a State where it has been found that there are large number of examples of orders being passed by judicial officers, not in conformity with the judgment passed in the present matter,” the bench said.

“We call upon the Allahabad High Court to file appropriate affidavit within four weeks with advance copy to the amicus setting out the steps taken in this regard and as to whether it has been identified if some judicial officers have been still frequently passing orders not in conformity with the judgment and whether any of the officers have been sent to the judicial academies for further upgradation of their skills,” the bench ordered.

Luthra also put on record some of the orders passed by Lucknow and Ghaziabad courts even after the clarification issued on March 21, 2023, that its 2022 judgment would also apply in anticipatory bail cases.

Taking note of the orders passed by Lucknow and Ghaziabad courts illustratively, the court asked the Allahabad High Court to look into it.

The court also warned that the concerned secretaries of the state government or the head of the prosecuting agencies should remain present on the next date, i.e. August 8, if court’s previous order for issuance of directions to the prosecutors for compliance of its directions and conducting training programs are not followed by them.