CRPC PROJECT REPORT

SUBMITTED TO:
PROF. SANGITA BHALLA
UILS, PANJAB UNIVERSITY
CHANDIGARH
SUBMITTED BY:
ARCHIT GARG
(B.A. LLB HONS.)
5TH SEMESTER
SECTION - A
ROLL NO- 24/19
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express a deep sense of thanks and gratitude to my project guide Prof. Sangita
Bhalla for guiding me immensely through the course of the project. She always evinced keen
interest in my work. Her constructive advice and constant motivation have been responsible for
the successful completion of this project.

I also thanks to my parents for their motivation and support. I must thanks to my friends for their
timely help and support for the completion of this project.

Last but not least, I would like to thank all those who had helped directly or indirectly towards
the completion of this project.
 INTRODUCTION

India is a democratic country and the basic concept of democracy is that every individual must
have personal liberty and freedom. It is the basic right of an individual which is protected by the
state. Thus the concept of bail and personal liberty goes hand in hand and therefore every
individual including the accused person has the right to seek bail in order to get himself released
from custody until and unless proven guilty by a court of law. As enshrined under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution that the life and personal liberty of a person can’t be deprived except by
the procedures laid down by the law.

In general, the term bail means the temporary release of an accused person on a temporary basis.
As the term bail has been derived from the French word bailer which means to deliver or to give.
The term bail has been used for a long time. As defined in the oxford dictionary bail is the
absolution of an accused person temporarily awaiting the trial or a sum of money is lodged by
the accused person as a guarantee for his appearance in the court.

The provisions regarding the bail and bonds have been specified from section 436 to 450 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. These provisions envisaged in the code gives the brief regarding the
provisions of the bail.

The concept of bail is that it acts as security lodged by the accused person on the basis of which
he can be released on a temporary basis but needs to appear in court whenever required by the
court. The process of bail takes place while the trial of the accused person is still pending.
Generally, a person seeks this option in order to get himself released from the police custody.
The process of bail is a legitimate process.
 BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT

The right to bail is a concomitant of the accusatorial system which advocates the right of bail
which primarily enables an accused to stay out of jail until found by guilty by a trial.
With the incorporation of Section 167(2) in Cr.P.C. the investigating agencies are required to
complete the job of investigation and file the charge-sheet within the time limit of either 60 or 90
days as the case may be. If not then the accused is entitled to be released on bail as it is implied
in Article 21 that every accused has right to an expeditions disposable of his/her case. In the case
of UdayMohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra1, it was held that this right cannot be denied
by anyone and In Achpal @ Ramswaroop & Another v. State of Rajasthan2, the court held that
prescribed time duration can not be extended.

Section 436 of Cr.P.C laid down several provisions for the grant of bail to any person accused
of a bailable offence whether arrested or detained by police without warrant of arrest or appears
or is brought before the Court of law. It is a matter of right if the offence is bailable and a matter
of discretion if the offence is non bailable. Bail should not be granted by the magistrate if the
offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and The Session Court and the High
Court have broader discretion in granting bail, even if the offence is punishable with death or
imprisonment for life.

The division bench of the High Court of madras has held that the essential distinction between a
bailable and non bailable offence is that in bailable offences bail would be granted as a matter of
right/course, if the arrested person agrees to furnish the bail, whereas in non bailable offences it
is on the Court’s discretion whether to grant bail or not Though grant or denial of bail would
obviously depend on the facts.
In Rajender Singh Sethia v. State3, it was said that the final decision for a bail related matter
should be based on the circumstances and facts of each case. The discretion should not be vague
and arbitrary rather it ought to be based on the reasoned and well settled principles.

1
UdayMohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453
2
Achpal @ Ramswaroop & Another v. State of Rajasthan(2019) 14 SCC 599
3
Rajender Singh Sethia v. State (1995) 34 DRJ 137
In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi4, it was laid down that at the time of granting bail the
Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
character and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the accused’s presence at the trial, and similar other
considerations.

In Ratan Singh Nihal Singh &Ors v. The State5, the court opined that “since right to liberty is
an imperative right of a person, an application seeking Bail should not be decided in a
mechanical and perfunctory manner”.
As per the facts of the case, Bail can be granted by Police, Executive Magistrate, Judicial
Magistrate, Session Judge, High Court and Supreme Court.

However, according to the section 436 (2), if a person has violated the conditions of the bail
bond earlier, the court may refuse to release him on bail, on a subsequent occasion in the same
case. He can also be asked to pay penalty for not appearing before the court in the proceedings
against him. As it is very evident that provisions related to bail in case of non-bailable offences
gives a discretionary power to the police and to the court. However the power is not without any
restraint. Section 437 disallows to give bail under mentioned conditions - If it appears there is a
reasonable ground for believing that he has committed an offence punishable with life
imprisonment or death or If such offence is cognizable and the person has been previously been
convicted of an offence with death or life imprisonment.

Provisions of Bail for an undertrial prisoner:

4
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, (2001) SC 1444
5
Ratan Singh Nihal Singh &Ors v. The State (1995) CriLJ 723
committed. According to a report6, Sixty seven perent of the people in Indian jails are under-
trials

National Crime Records Bureau of the Government of India has also stated that most of them are
accused for very petty issues and the time spent by them in the prison are even more than the
sentence of the crime accused. The reasons given for the umpteen number of under trials in the
country are indiscriminate arrests, failure to pay Bail Bond/Surety, inadequate number of judges
and prosecutors, lack of use of provisions, lack of sympathy by the administration, lacunae of
Legal aid schemes and lack of coordination between the Centre, Judiciary & State Governments
in solving the problems.

The legislature amended the Cr.P.C. in 2005 and introduced Section 436-A to release undertrial
prisoners who serve half the maximum sentence in prison as a matter of right. Further, Section
436 of the CrPC was amended in 2005 to provide that if a person arrested for a bailable offence
is not able to furnish bail within a week of arrest, he shall be presumed to be indigent, and shall
be released on bond without sureties. The judiciary also takes into consideration the growing
menace of undertrial numbers and in order to curb the same, In cases of Legal Aid Committee v.
Union of India7 and Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India8, the Apex court have given
periodical directions for one time release. In R.D. Upadhyay v. State of AP9, the Supreme Court
decided that the undertrial prisoners who charged with murder should be released on bail if their
cases were pending for two years or more, and that persons charged with comparatively minor
offences, such as theft, cheating, etc., should be released if they had been in prison for more than
a year.

In Bhim Singh v. Union of India10, the SC observed that all the previous decisions were one
time and hence did not contribute much to tackle the issue and the poor implementation of
amended Section 436-A also failed to help. So, by acknowledging the issue with Section 436-A,
6
Prison Statistics India 2015 report released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in October 2016
7
Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731
8
Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 616
9
R.D. Upadhyay v. State of AP (1996) 3 SCC 422
10
Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015) 13 SCC 603.
the Court directed the jurisdictional magistrate/ chief judicial magistrate/sessions judge to hold
one sitting per week in each jail/prison for two months to identify undertrials eligible for bail
under Section 436-A and to pass an appropriate order with respect to Section 436-A in the jail
itself. In the year 2016, the Social Justice Bench of the Supreme Court prescribed guidelines and
asked both the central and state government to work along for the problem in hand.

Keeping in mind the perils of Pandemic due to outbreak of COVID -19 , the Delhi High Court
modified the bail orders passed by itself and courts subordinate to it doing away with the
condition of furnishing surety bond & instead, allowing the under-trial prisoners to be released
on their furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of Superintendent of Jail.
 P. CHIDAMBARAM VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citations: Criminal Appeal No: 1831 of 2019

Bench: Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi, Hon’ble Justice A. S. Bopanna, Hon’ble

Court: Supreme Court of India

D/d: 04.12.2019

BACKGROUND

The CBI filed an FIR alleging that M/s INX Media Private Limited filled an application for
approval from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) to issue equity and shares along
with the permission to make a downstream financial investment in M/s INX News upto the
extent of 26%. The Board forwarded the proposal to the Finance Minister for approval and
consideration. However, the Board denied the downstream investment.

Contrary to the proposal approved by the FIPB, M/s INX Media deliberately made a downstream
investment upto 26% in INX News Pvt. Ltd and made more than Rs.305crores FDI which was
against the approved FDI inflow. A complaint regarding the same was made to the Income Tax
Department. From the fear of punishment M/s INX Media entered into a criminal conspiracy
with Mr. Karti Chidambaram. M/s INX News Pvt. Ltd then again approached FIPB seeking
approval for the downstream investment which was this time considered and approved by the
then Finance Minister. It was alleged that the officials of the FIPB were under the influence or
Mr. Karti Chidambaram which led them to show undue favour to M/s INX News and that Mr.
Karti Chidambaram received consideration of approximately Rs.3.5crores which was raised in
favour of M/s INX Group.
Under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PLMA) another case known
as the ECIR case was filed by the Directorate of Enforcement alleging the same mentioned by
the CBI.

However, Mr. P. Chidambaram the then Union Finance Minister and the father of Mr. Karti
Chidambaram was not mentioned as accuse in any of the above case.

FACTS

On 23rd July, 2018 Mr. P. Chidambaram [hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”] filed an
application seeking anticipatory bail from the High Court of Delhi as he was arrested by
Directorate of Enforcement [hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”] in the ECIR case. The
Court dismissing the application provided the appellant with interim protection until July 20th,
2019.

The appellant by way of special leave petition filed an appeal in the Supreme Court which was
dismissed on the grounds that if anticipatory bail was granted it would hinder the investigation
process.

On 21st August 2019, the CBI arrested the appellant and he has been in custody since then as he
was further arrested in the ECIR case on 16th October 2019 on the grounds that it was at his
instructions that payment of Rs.3crore was made for work done for INX Group.

The appellant filed another application before the High Court on 23rd October 2019 under
Section 439 of Criminal Procedural Code but was further dismissed by the High Court on the
grounds that the allegations imposed on the appellant were of serious nature and thereby stated
that the appellant has played an active role in the said case.
 ISSUE

 Whether, bail should be granted to the Appellant.

CONTENTIONS RAISED

BY THE APPELLANT SIDE

The Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that the order of the High Court ought
to be set aside on the grounds that the allegations imposed on the appellant were of a completely
unrelated case as not a single document was provided to prove that the appellant was involved in the
conspiracy.

They further contended that in the case Chidambaram vs. CBI (Crl. Appeal no: 1603 of 2019) it
was stated that “at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed
reasons touching upon the merits of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be
avoided” but, the High Court, in this case, denied bail by rendering the findings on merit.

It was stated by the counsel that the appellant was neither a shareholder nor a director and had no
relation with any of the companies. Also, the officers who approved the FDI proposal for INX
Media were not arrested and those arrested in the ECIR case have been granted bail. Further,
being in judicial custody for so long the appellant who is of 74 years of age, health continued to
deteriorate and he was taken to doctors frequently for consultations and tests.
 BY THE RESPONDENT SIDE

The Solicitor General for the respondent side contended that due to the high held position of the
appellant it is very likely that the appellant has influenced the witness and tempered with the
evidence.

Further, the evidence provided by the Investigating Agency, shows that the emails exchanged by
the other conspirators and the money invested in the Benami properties were likely carried out
on the instructions of the appellant or his family members.

He further contended, for considering bail it is likely important to take the gravity of offense into
consideration as economic offenses are more serious and a bail granted during such investigation
would defeat the purpose of investigation.

OBSERVATIONS

The Court observed that economic offences would be considered grave offence as the
consequences of financial irregularities will befall society. However, there is no rule in the
legislature or jurisprudence making it compulsory to deny bail in case of a grave offence. Further
irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence no bail shall be granted or denied solely on the
precedent of another case. The Court thereby disapproved the manner of conclusions carried out
by the High Court wherein the observations were made based on the findings related to the
offence.

Observing the fact that the other accused are granted bail or are enjoying interim protection and
the appellant was in judicial custody from 16th October 2019, being 74 years old and suffered
from illness while being in custody for more than 45 days there was probably no chance for him
to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. The Court was of the view that the
appellant was entitled to bail.
 JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court granted the bail by setting aside the order of the High Court of Delhi
provided the executing bail bond for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs along with two securities be provided
before the learned Special Judge.

The Court also instructed the appellant to not leave the country without specific orders and his
passport to remain deposited with the CBI. Further, he shall not temper with the evidence or try
to influence the witness. The appellant was instructed to not give any interview or public
comment regarding the case. Therefore, given the reasons mentioned above, the Supreme Court
granted the appellant with bail by setting aside the order of the High Court.
 BIBlOGRAPHY

1. K N Chandrasekharan Pillai (ed): R V Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, 6th Ed. 2014 Reprinted,
2019, Eastern Book Company
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
3. Bail as matter of Right available at https://www.legalangles.org/post/bail-as-a-matter-of-
right-really (last visited on 27/11/21).
4. P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement available at
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42679608/ (last visited on 28/11/21)