Types Of Plea Bargaining

there are three main types of Plea Bargaining i.e.,

1. Charge Bargain
2. count Bargain
3. Fact Bargain
4. Sentence bargain
Explanation as given below:

Charge Bargaining
The defendant pleads to a criminal offense that is much less critical than the original price, or
the maximum serious of the charges. charge bargaining results in a reduced sentence and
early disposal.

Guerrero Lugo Elvia Grissel and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra
Example:
If the prosecution charges Joey with burglary, but he pleads guilty to trespassing and the
prosecution dismisses the burglary charge.

Count Bargaining
This type is little similar to Charge barraging. In this defendant pleads guilty one charge
among multiple charges but in Charge bargaining defendant pleads guilty for another new
charges.
Example:
The prosecution expenses Ross with both robbery and simple attack. The parties agree that
Ross will plead to the attack charge and that the prosecution will dismiss the theft charge.

Sentence Bargaining
In this type of bargaining the main motive is to get a lesser sentence. In Sentence bargaining,
the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the stated charge and in return, he bargains for a
lighter sentence.
Example:
Sammy agrees to plead to the charge of resisting arrest, and the prosecution agrees to
recommend that the judge not sentence him to jail time.
In other case of Vijay Moses das Vs. CBI the Uttarakhand High Court the concept of plea-
bargaining, wherein accused was charged under section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The
Hon’ble High Court allowed the Misc. Application by directing the trial court to accept the
plea-bargaining application.

Fact Bargaining
This is generally not used in courts because it is alleged to be against Criminal Justice
System. It occurs when a defendant agrees to stipulate to certain facts in order to prevent
other facts from being introduced into evidence.
Example:
The government files an indictment against drug trafficking. Federal agents stuck him with
over five kilograms of cocaine. Five kilograms triggers a sentence involving many years in
prison, so, it agrees to plead guilty to the offense in exchange for the prosecution is
stipulation that he possessed less than five kilograms.

Benefits of plea bargaining

Plea bargaining is the primary apparatus through which judges, prosecutors, and defense
attorneys cooperate and work together toward their individual and collective goals. The
primary benefit of plea bargaining for both the prosecution and the defense is that there is no
risk of complete loss at trial.

Prosecutors benefit from plea bargains because the deals allow them to improve
their conviction rates. Some prosecutors also use plea bargains as a way to encourage
defendants to testify against co-defendants or other accused criminals.

Plea bargains allow prosecutors to avoid trials, which are shunned because they are time-
consuming, labour-intensive, and costly but carry no guarantee of success. It allows defense
attorneys to increase their efficiency and profits, because they can invest less time on plea-
bargained cases

Judges also benefit from plea bargaining. The practice allows judges to preside over efficient
trials, to minimize the risk of rulings being overturned on appeal, and to avoid the necessity
of making rulings during trial. It removes the burden of determining guilt, and the practice
allows them to share the responsibility for sentencing with the attorneys who fashioned the
bargain
Defendants, of course, also benefit from plea bargains, because they can limit the severity of
the sanctions they face and add certainty to an otherwise unpredictable process.

Fast disposal of cases

The plea bargaining is beneficial for both the prosecution and the defense as it helps the
attorneys to defend their clients in an easy way because both the parties possess bargaining
power. This is how the long-standing disputes can be resolved and the court would also not
need to face encumbrance of case files.

Less serious offenses on one’s record

In a country like India where society plays a vital role, once a person is stigmatized by
society which leads to ostracization. In such scenario, Plea Bargaining allows a person to
plead guilty or no contest in exchange for a reduction in the number of charges or the
seriousness of the offenses.

A hassle-free approach

Indian is known for its long-standing case. Many cases proceedings go for 8-10 year thereby
both the parties suffer. Such instances show a grave infringement of their human rights. Plea
bargaining allows a person to plead guilty without hiring a lawyer. It safeguards the interest
of such persons by avoiding the hassles that they face when the case remains pending.

In  the State Of Gujarat vs Natwar Harchandji Thakor (2005) 1 GLR 709, the Court
acknowledged the importance of plea bargaining and said that every “plea of guilty” which is
construed to be a part of the statutory process in the criminal trial, should not be understood
as a “plea bargaining” ipso facto.. Considering the dynamic nature of law and society, the
court said that the very object of the law is to provide an easy, cheap and expeditious justice
by resolving disputes.

Criticisms of plea bargaining.

Many individuals complain that plea bargaining allows offenders to escape appropriate
punishment for their crimes. Others feel that the existence of plea bargains penalizes those
who exercise their constitutional right to trial.

In Murlidhar Meghraj Loya vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 1929), The Hon’ble

Supreme Court criticized the concept of Plea Bargaining and said that it intrudes upon the
society’s interests.
Involvement of Police

The Involvement of the police in plea bargaining attracts criticism. As India is infamous for
the custodial torture by police. In such scenario, the concept of Plea Bargaining is more likely
to aggravate the situation.

Corruption

The role of victims in plea bargaining process is also not appreciated. The role of victim in
this process would attract corruption which is ultimately defeating the purpose which is
sought to be achieved by such action. In Kasambhai vs State of Gujarat (1980 AIR 854)
& Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal vs State of Gujarat and Anr, the Apex court said that
the Plea Bargaining is against public policy. Moreover, it regretted the fact that the magistrate
accepted the plea bargaining of accused. Furthermore, Hon’ble Court described this concept
as a highly reprehensible practice.

Independent Judicial Authority

The provisions of Plea Bargaining do not provide for an independent judicial authority to
evaluate plea-bargaining applications. This is one of the glaring reasons for its criticism. The
failure to make confidential any order passed by the court rejecting an application could also
create biases towards the accused.

Not the Final Solution

In India, the reason behind the delay in trials is many e.g., the operation of the investigative
agencies as well as the judiciary, personal interest of lawyers etc. Therefore, the need of the
hour is not a substitute for trial but an overhaul of the system which can be in terms of
structure, composition and its work culture. All these measures would ensure reasonably fast
trials.

In State of Uttar Pradesh vs Chandrika 2000 Cr.L.J. 384(386), the Apex Court disparaged
the concept of plea bargaining and held this practice as unconstitutional and illegal. Plea
bargaining cannot basis of disposing of criminal cases. The case has to be decided on the
merit.
Conclusion

To conclude, Plea Bargaining is undoubted, a disputed concept few people have welcomed it
while others have abandoned it. Plea Bargaining indeed speeds up caseload disposition, but it
unconstitutionally does that. But possibly we haven't any other choice however to adopt this
approach. The criminal court is too overburdened to allow each case to go on trial. I assume,
[5] only time will tell if the introduction of this concept is justified or not.
In light of the various pronouncements given by the Courts in India, it can be said that the
concept of Plea Bargaining in India has two sides of interpretations and perceptions.
Even the Supreme Court has upheld that delay of one year in the commencement of trial is
bad enough; how much worse could it be when the delay is as long as three or five or seven
to ten years or more. Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and there is no doubt that
delays in trial itself constitutes denial of justice. Initially, the concept of plea- bargaining was
criticized by a group of society including legal experts and intellectuals by stating that it will
demoralize the public confidence in criminal justice system and also lead to lesser penalties
to rich class, conviction of innocent people and therefore, it has become disputed concept
now.
Today, it is used by all great countries like USA, Europe, Canada and some authorities stated
that the prevalent conditions in India are very different from US, even then to meet out the
huge backlog of cases in India and ultimately it will have to be done with the consent of both
the parties i.e., accused and prosecution, then what undermines? Therefore, India cannot
abstain itself for this law. This practice has been accepted by Indian Judiciary. It can reduce
the heavy backlog of cases in Indian courts; as it requires today and we hope that
overburdened criminal courts will soon get a relief with it and rate of disposing will become
rapid.
According to the view of a Judge of Delhi High Court ‘over three crore cases are pending in
Indian courts. Plea-bargaining will solve cases involving petty offences and the courts will
concentrate on more serious offences.
However, the criminal justice system has reformed over time and has made plea bargaining
conducive to the legal and social standards.
With the tremendous number of criminal cases stacking up the courts, the concept of Plea
Bargaining is imperative as it provides for the fast and expeditious means of disposing of
cases. When the process is complete and the quantum of punishment and possibility of the
probation is finished, we can say that the victims are not the forgotten actor rather they have
become a key player in the criminal justice system.