Tripura High Court
In The Case Of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of on 19 September, 2022
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)(PIL) No.12 of 2022
Court on its own motion
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Dey, Advocate General,
Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
19/09/2022
(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)
Learned Advocate General drew our attention to a judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application
No.1849 of 2021 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of
2021 along with other connected petition dated 11th July, 2022 and in
particular, para (j) of the Summary/Conclusion which is quoted hereinbelow:
"j) 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 Bhim Singh (supra), followed by appropriate orders."
On the basis of such submission and on the basis of the
judgment cited by the learned Advocate General, Registry of this Court is
directed to register another Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and place that
matter before this Court tomorrow (20.09.2022).
The present PIL has come to be registered on the basis of a
letter addressed by one Nallapu. Manideep addressed to the Chief Justice
bringing to the attention of the Court that Under Trial Prisoners (UTPs) in
the State of Tripura are remaining in custody despite grant of bail by
competent court due to their alleged non-capability to furnish bail bonds and
sureties. On receipt of such communication, directions were issued on the
administrative side to the Registrar General of the Court to obtain
information from all the District and Sessions Judges in the State of Tripura.
The said instructions received shall form part as an appendix to this order.
The issue raised has repeatedly been dealt with by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various judgments from time to time and the latest being
in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. vide judgment dated 11th July, 2022 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Hon'ble High Courts to undertake the
exercise of finding out the UTPs who are not able to comply with the bail
conditions and after doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in the
light of Section 440 of the Code facilitating release. Further, in para (i), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that "while insisting upon sureties the
mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind".
There can be no doubt that once an accused is granted bail by
the court, the accused is entitled to be set free subject to the compliance of
the conditions imposed in the order granting bail. On the report furnished to
this Court by the Registrar General on the information received by him from
all the District and Sessions Judges of the State, we find in the said latest
report that, in fact, the number has reduced to 115, although it was alleged in
the letter of the informant that there are 175 persons who have been granted
bail remained in custody.
In view of such circumstances and the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hereby direct as follows :
(i) The District & Sessions Judges of the respective districts
shall take the assistance of the District Legal Services
Authority (DLSA) and ensure that lawyers of the DLSA
meet the 115 accused persons wherever they may be in
custody and advice the said accused to make application
seeking modification of conditions of bail either through the
lawyers whom they had engaged or through the counsel
which the DLSA may engage for such reason. Such
applications be filed at the earliest.
(ii) The learned District & Sessions Judges shall instruct all the
learned Trial Judges to take up such application for
modification of conditions of bail at an expeditious manner
strictly in terms of Section 440 of the Cr.P.C and make such
variances in the conditions imposed as they may find just
and proper. All such applications for modification of
conditions filed in the cases which form part of the appendix
to this order shall be disposed of within a week of its filing
positively. We hope and trust that with the cooperation of
the advocates of such litigants who remain in custody in
spite of bail and/or the lawyers provided to the accused by
the DLSAs, this exercise must be taken up in dourness and
reports by the Districts and Sessions Judge of all such cases
where conditions of bail have been varied and the number of
accused have been released shall be furnished to this Court
latest by the 27th September, 2022. Registry is directed to
collate all such reports and this matter shall be taken up on
the 28th September, 2022.
(iii) The learned Advocate General is requested to instruct all
Public Prosecutors to consider each case on its own merits,
and if so necessary, not to unnecessarily object to variation
of conditions that may be sought for.
We also think this is appropriate to direct the District &
Sessions Judges to take weekly review of cases where bails have been
granted and the accused persons have not yet been released and
simultaneously we also direct the jail authorities to submit weekly reports on
similar topic to the District & Sessions Judges so that appropriate steps as
may be necessary under Section 440 can be initiated through the lawyers
who appeared for the accused persons and/or through lawyers who may be
appointed through the concerned DLSA.
Registry is directed also to communicate this order to all parties
concerned and a free copy of the order may be handed over to the office of
the learned Advocate General for necessary compliance.
List this matter on 28th September, 2022.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pijush
