Presumption of Innocence In Indian Judicial System – bail or jail.

Etching divide between

Constitution and the undertrials is an undermining AND granting them bail in bailable
offences is the underpinning of the RULE OF LAW.

ABSTRACT:

Presumption of innocence in Indian Judicial System is the doctrine to take forward the law to
begin the trial and to end the trial without forgetting that the doctrine is not for a showcase. The
rule of law is the cardinal principle of gateway to the respect to law of the state and the guardian
of the democratic governance. Freedom from arbitrary power is a fundamental requirement of
the RULE OF LAW, underpinning our entire constitutional structure. Governance should be rule
based and not arbitrary or unclear or farfetched. Another example of the rule of law philosophy
in India is Article 13 of the Indian Constitution which defines laws as rules, regulations, bye laws
and ordinances that can be overturned if they are in violation of Indian constitution.

The renowned Justice V K Krishna Iyer was an ardent supporter of the principle that the bail is
the rule and the Jail is the exception which seems that the Courts should grant bail to accused
persons unless there are compelling reasons to keep him/her in jail.

An irony despite the fact that Indian Constitution with the doctrines of basic structure and the
rule of law in its axle as fulcrum is not regarded by authorities at the helm of affairs. The Cr PC
1973 makes it clear the offences enumerated in its Sec 2(a ),Schedule 1 are bailable. And 2/3
prisoners in various jails in country are languishing in jails as undertrial charged for bailable
offences. There are various remedies available to grant them bail but lack of desire on the part of
honorable courts is the stumbling block making the life of such inmates miserable, directionless
and full of negativity in dungeon. The life of their families is also shattered after tiring with
observing and waiting for their release which is due to prevalent socio economic poor conditions
coupled with illiteracy.

The timely release of prisoners charged with bailable offences through fast trial or allowing
them bail as per rule of law will go a long way in rehabilitating the offenders and giving a fresh
lease of life to their vanquished families on one hand AND reducing pendency of cases and
evacuating the jails where living conditions can be refreshed when inmates are not limited. Also
the demand of states like NCT Delhi for funds from centre for building for two new jails will be
neutralized.

Circuit courts in each District Jail specially for inmates charged under bailable offences will give
employment and exposure to new advocates as it does not need any deep study because all are
bailable offences as per Sch-1 of the Cr PC. The clearance of bailable bails will give rise to our
heads as today we are under stigma that undertrails in jails are languishing due to insignificant
reasons as elaborated above.

INTRODUCTION:

It states that a person is presumed to be innocent unless proven otherwise. In criminal trial in
India the burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests on the presumption that until the guilt is
proven beyond reasonable doubt, the accused should be treated to be innocent. The
administration of prisons is still colonial in nature being that every accused is treated to be an
alien /foreigner and even after 75 years of independence from British rule we could not bring any
law on Bail and we are carrying the same mental clutter as was before the independence.
Meaning is that the bail is not even defined in any substantive or procedure law. The matter of
bail is taken up in Courts only as per Cr PC 1973.

As per NCRB, 2021, nearly 71 percent of total number of prisoners are under trail. There are 3
types of prisoners-1. Under Judicial Custody, 2. Under Trail and 3. Convicted ones.

Of total 554000 prisoners as per NCRB , 2021, nearly 427000 are awaiting Trial and are already
in Jail for 3 to 5 years. A good number of prisoners awaiting trial have already been in jail for
more than the period prescribed as punishment (conviction) in IPC or other Laws for the
particular offence/crime and still their trial is lying inconclusive or is pending .

It is said that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of a prisoner implicit in Art 21 of the
Constitution. NALSA 1987 and Article 39a are propagator of free legal aid / services to those
who are poor and it is available at Centre, State and District Level Judiciary.

Despite the provisions above, the prisoners on whom the charge levied is in the list of bail- able
charges as per section 2(a) of Cr PC 1973 are not granted bail as there is no one to take up their
cases and they are languishing in jail and their poor families are betrayed. In such cases, very
simple advocacy on the part of Advocates in the court is required that , unless nothing is
otherwise, is required – “Sir the charge is bail-able”. Further the past record of the prisoner
otherwise is unblemished and the person signing the security bond is of reasonable
creditworthiness.
The renowned Justice V K Krishna Iyer was an ardent supporter of the principle that the bail is
the rule and the Jail is the exception which seems that the Courts should grant bail to accused
persons unless there are compelling reasons to keep him/her in jail. His land mark judgments
include Gudikanti Narsimhulu Vs prosecution – HC of AP.

Recently the present CJI, Justice D Chandrachud has admonished the lower courts upto District
level to grant bail where bailable unless there are compelling reasons to keep them in jail
custody.

Also recently the Supreme Court of India has granted bail called default bail since the
investigating agencies as per Section 167 of Cr PC could not complete their investigation in the
prescribed time schedule and there were no prima facie compelling reasons to keep the offender
in jail. However. the default bail granted by the SC has been put a condition that it would not
qualify for the provisions of Art 141 of the constitution and the Courts in the hierarchy must not
take it as precedence and in cases where compelling reasons are visible the bail is not grant-able.

At this stage it is pertinent to know, what is contemplated by bail _ to procure the release of a
person from legal custody by undertaking that concerned will appear at the time and place
designated and submit him/her to the jurisdiction. With the above definition it is evident that
money may not be a concomitant of the bail system.

As such it is further pertinent to know that the CR Code 1973 does not define bail and only the
terms like bailable and non bailable are defined in Sect2(a) with Schedule 1 of Cr PC 1973.

Criminal Jurisprudence adopted in India is a direct reflection of English. Millions of cusecs of

water has flown down in rivers from their head to tail and just a few amendments to pacify
certain pressure groups and vote banks have taken place. No serious thought has been given as to
whether the existing legislations in place for the last over 7 decades have taken into account
plight and socio economic conditions of over 80 percent of poor and persecuted population
India, which lives in utter poverty , ours being a poverty stricken under developed country.

The concept of bail which is an integrated part of the criminal jurisprudence also suffers from the
above stated drawbacks. Bail is broadly used to mark the release of a person charged with an
offence, on his providing a security but the release is subject to ensure his presence before the
court or any other authority whenever required .

What is bail? it is the release of an offender from Jail awaiting trial or an appeal by way of
deposit of security as given in Chapter -36 of Cr PC --preventive (reasonable and affordable)
and not punitive. The monetary value of the security known as the bail or more accurately the
bail bond is set by the court having jurisdiction over the prisoner. The bond may be in cash, or
the security papers giving title to property or security bond or any other type of security bond. In
case of failure of the person released on bail to surrender himself at the appointed time results in
forfeiture of the security.

Courts have greater discretion to grant or deny bail in the case of persons under criminal arrest
like the charge of homicide, dacoity, roadholding and other rarest of rare crimes.

With the above, it is evident that money need not be a concomitant of the bail system, meaning is
that the security bond must be of reasonable and affordable value as a preventive measure and
not punitive one where the value of bond is asked in lakh together. As recently in one case of a
executive Magistrate upheld by a High Court has been turned down by the Supreme Court of
India.

Thus Bail in a bailable offence and genuine case is the constitutional right of the undertrial and
the judicial course of trial granting bail is the RULE OF LAW to take forward the provisions
enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Historical background of Bail:

Plato had tried to create a bond for the release of his mentor Socrates in 399 BC, under the
concept of bail. In the middle age from a series of laws the bail system has evolved in England.
There was a system of circuit courts which used to be held periodically from place to place. The
presiding officer and other officers/employees were the same and they use to move from place
to place to hear cases and the offenders in jail used to wait for the circuit courts. On the arrival of
courts the offenders matters were placed before and against security bond in select cases the bails
were granted. Here to add that terms Sessions and Quarter Sessions were derived from the
periodicity of the circuit courts. In the meanwhile the prisoners were kept in jail where the
conditions were pathetic, unhygienic and inhuman. This also caused spread of a lot of contagious
diseases. This caused a lot of agitation in prisoners and consequently their bail against security
bonds was heard /conceded.

Evolution in England:

In Magna Charta 1215, the first step was taken forward in grating rights to citizens. It is said that
no man could be taken or imprisoned without being judged by peers or the law of the land.

Thus in 1275, the Statue of Westminster was enacted which divided crimes as bailable and
nonbailable . It was also determined which judges and officials could make decisions on bail.

In 1677, the Habeas Corpus Act was added to the rights of petition of 1628 which gave right to
the defendant the right to be told of the charges against him, right to know if the charges against
him are bailable or nonbailable. This went very well in the matter of bail. Magistrates used their
good conscience and equity in granting bail against security bond of reasonable amount,

In 1689- English Bill of Rights –which provided safeguards against judges setting bail even very
high, however, excessive bail ought not to be required.

As on date- status- In 1976 the Bail Act came in force in England. It lays that there is a general
right to bail, except as provided for under the first schedule of the Act. Despite the Bail Act and
provisions therein, there are different grounds for refusing the right to bail depending on the
nature of offence. Two basic grounds are as set out by the O Callaghan Decision.

Finally there is one more grim ground that if the Court is satisfied that there are substantial
grounds to believe that the defendant if released on bail will commit an offence while on bail, the
bail may be refused/rejected.

English administrative law also requires that there is an existing obligation to give reasons for a
decision, the reason given be clear and adequate and deal with substantial issues in the case.

American Position :

In 1898, as per San Francisco News and the SF Chronicles the modern bail bonds business in US
came and according to which a person pays a percentage to a professional bondsman who put up
the cash as a guarantee that the person will appear in the Court was established by Tom and Peter
in 1898.

The Act states that all non capital crimes are bailable and to decide about bail in capital crime
cases is left to the wisdom/conscience and decision of the Judge to detain a suspect prior to trial
was left to the judge.

In 1791, the Bill of Rights was introduced into Constitution of the US, thro amendment No 5th,6th
and 8th , guaranteeing citizens the right to due process of law, fair an speedy trial and protection
against excessive bail shall not be required. The 8th amendment to the constitution of the US
provides that excessive bail shall not be required but it does not provide any absolute right to
bail.

In present position, a defendant has the right to bail unless there is sufficient reason to regret the
bail. The main reasons for refusing bail apropos Bail Act are that there are substantial grounds to
believe that (1) the defendant will abscond, (2) will commit further offences during his release
on bail or (3) will interfere with witnesses.

Certain terms may be applied to the grant of bail such living at a particular place, having some
one to act as a surety.

Bail is some times granted at police Station level by the Police and such bail is called bail by
Police, not Court.

In America, every accused person is entitled to a hearing at which evidence relevant to his
individual case is considered to determine the amount of bond for bail necessary and no other
precise rule. Bail is to be fixed according to the circumstances of the each case on the sound
discretion of the Trial Court. At the same time it is pertinent to note that the determination of the
trail court is subject to the review in the appellate court for abuse of dictation. Ordinarily the
appellate courts do not interfere if the amount set by trial court is reasonable and not excessive. It
must be preventive and not punitive as it is repeatedly mentioned at few places in this article.

Remanded into custody is the alternative to custody (also called held on remand).
Both the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution contain provisions against excessive
bail.

Bail set at an amount higher than reasonably calculated to ensure that the accused will appear as
and when he /she is called before the Trial Court and submit to sentence if convicted is
excessive, and falls within the prescription of the Federal Constitution if set by a federal court, or
of the particular State’s constitution if set by a state court. But no hard and fast rules for
determining what is reasonable bail and what is excessive bail have been laid down.

The amount of bail , in and for itself is not finally determinative of excessiveness as what would
be reasonable bail in one case of one defendant, may be excessive in the case of another
defendant. The material factors in determining whether bail is excessive depends on various
factors like past criminal record, the nature of the offence committed and the prescribed
punishment. In cases where more than one case is pending against the defendant and the bail is
applied in one case , the amount of bond should not be cumulative.

The Bail Reform Act of 1966 provides for the release of defendant on his personal recognizance
or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the Magistrate/
Judicial officer before he has to appear.

The Bail Reform Act 1966 was initiated by President Johnson who felt that under the federal
rules, bail in an amount higher than reasonably calculated to be necessary to assure the presence
of this excessive. However, the offenders are to be considered as individuals and not as Dollar
Signs

The factors to be taken into account while calculating the amount of bail are illustrated below.

1. Ability of the accused to give bail.

2. Nature of offence
3. Penalty of the offence charged.
4. Character and the past record of the accused.
5. Health condition of the accused.
6. Character and strength of the evidence.
7. Probability of the accused appearing in trial.
 8. Forfeiture of the other bonds in past.
9. Criminal record and if at all has been declared fugitive in past.
10. Accused is under bond in some other cases under trial.

In determining the amount of bond, voluntary surrender may be considered as an indicator of his
intensions about his escaping or absconding from justice

All the same, even where bail is a matter of right, the fact that a person has previously forfeited
bail is a factor to be considered in determining the amount of bail.

Notwithstanding anything contained therein, the court should give regard to the pecuniary
circumstances since what is reasonable bail to a man of wealth may be equivalent to a denial of
the right to bail if extracted of a poor man charged with a like offence . An accused can not be
denied release from jail because of indigence (poverty), but is constitutionally entitled to be
released on his personal recognizance where other relevant factors make it reasonable to believe
that he will comply with the orders of the court and will not abscond .

The current American position is stated in a standard treatise, ”There is power in the court to
release the defendant without bail or on his own recognition.”

With the above comparative study of BAIL in British and America , we may very well find the
situation in India as to where we stand.

Legal Position of bail in India:

Cr P C 1973 does not define bail and it contains only the terms like bailable and nonbailable
offences given in its Section 2(a).Bailable offences are given in Schedule -1st or which is made
bailable by any other law for the time being enforce and nonbailable offence means any other
offence .

Further, Chapter 33- Section 436 to 450 set out the provisions for the grant of bail and bonds in
criminal cases. The amount of security that has to be paid by the accused to secure his release
has not been determined or mentioned in the Cr PC and its is purely on the discretion of the
Court to put a monetary cap on the security bond. Recently held by the Supreme Court of India
in a case where the amount of bond by the court of executive Magistrate was put to be very high
and the same was concurred by the respective High Court has clearly observed that the
provisions of the Chapter VIII of the code of Cr PC are preventive in nature and are not to be
used as a vehicle of punishment.

This reflects that our courts are not sensitive to the socio educational and economic plight of the
poor down trodden sections of the society. The unreasonable and exorbitant amounts demanded
by the courts as bail bond is conspicuous with their absence of human approach.

According to the recent report –poor state of undertrials -13th of Dec 2022. Recently the
President of India has raised the issue of the plight of a large number of undertrials held
up in prisons.

Who are the undertrials? An under trial is a person who is currently on trial or who has been
imprisoned on remand whilst awaiting trial or a person who is on a trail in a court of law.

As per 78th report of the Law Commission date 1.4.1977 , an undertrial is a person who is under
judicial custody on remand during investigation.

The status of the undertrials in India :

As per NCRB ( National Crime Report Bureau ) over the last 10 years the number of undertrials
in jail has risen constantly and the maximum number reached is of year 2021.

In 2020, there were as many as 488511 prison inmates (with 4.3 percent women prisoners) and
of which about 69.10 percent are undertrail, languishing in jail which are amongst the highest
observed number in the world. Of these undertrials as many as 2000 people have been in jail for
more than 5 years. From the statistics along it can be seen that issue of the undertrail prisoners is
one that needs an immediate action for their release.

As per Section 436 A of Cr PC, if an undertrail prisoner has been in jail during trial or pending
trial for more than half of the maximum period attributed to the crime , he/she should be released
on the presentation of a personal bond if otherwise there are no compelling reasons for keeping
in jail.
Various studies done within Indian prisons have concluded that a majority of prisoners are
Adivasis, Dalits or from other marginalized communities that are being criminalized. Their
social and economic conditions make them vulnerable, being unable to defend themselves
legally and financially. This study aims at to high light the general issues related to SC STs and
Women prisoners , conspicuous with the structural exclusion within the prison.

Who are under trial prisoners ? those who have not been convicted but are in prison during the
investigation , inquiry, or trial of the crime for which they were arrested. They are generally
defendants who have been accused of not being bailed and denied bail, or accused defendants
who may be released on bail or released on bail to the extent of their legal rights but have not
been able to provide bail bonds and sureties. It also includes defendants who are released on bail
for an unpardoned crime but do not meet the mandatory conditions, set forth by the court.

Rights provided to undertrail prisoners :

FREE TRIAL : means both prosecution and the defendants are treated as if they are
on the same pedestal/equal footing. All criminal trials begin with a presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused, and code of criminal procedure is written so that a
criminal procedure begins and ends with that significant presumption. The fastest
possible delay in resolving a criminal case puts the suspect in constant fear and
mental distress, exacerbated during the police custody.
1. Legal Assistance and Rights of plea defence : it is assumed that the State will use
investigative resources and hire experienced prosecutors to the accused evidence,
taking care of Art 21 of the constitution and Section 303 of the Cr PC facilitating the
accused to give the right to counsel and be represented by a lawyer of his choice.
Incase of his deprivation of sufficient financial resources to hire a lawyer, the right to
be represented by a lawyer of his choice is useless.
2. Please advocate at the expense of the State : If the defendant is not represented and he
is in need of representation at the cost of state due to financial inability. Indian
Criminal Justice system has attempted to address it. Only important point is that the
appointed lawyer must be competent to take up the case. Not the least but important
 that such lawyers must not miss the proceedings and get busy with high paying work
and as such the related cases of defendants keep getting postponed for years.
3. Section 436A of Cr PC states that any prisoner has been in jail for more than half of
the time prescribed for a particular crime for which death penalty is not the
punishment may be released on bail on his own personal security bond unless there
are compelling reasons to keep him in jail.
4. Section 167 of the Cr PC : Security Deposit rights are absolute in accordance with a
clause (A) in section 167. In case the prosecution is not able to file an indictment /
chargesheet in the prescribed time of 90 or 60 days dead line depending on the
circumstances . All the same, defendant have no special right to bail. Under Section
167(2), the bail granted can be revoked if in investigation report the indictment comes
in light and filed so.

Under trial Prisoners, their conditions in India : According to 2020 prison data , more than 70
percent of undertrial prisoners are from marginalized groups of society –SC, ST ,and WOMEN.
Right to a fast trial is an important aspect of a fair trial and of course is basic to human rights as
held by the Supreme Court of India in Hussainara KhatoonVs Home Secretary Bihar State
and ors.

Hundreds of people are jailed daily , being charged with a bailable offence for which bail as a
legal right is well available. As per NCRB 2016 , two out of every three individuals imprisoned
are under trial .The pending cases of criminal trials are mounting day by day and the fast track
trial is only on papers. Over 1.70 Crore of criminal cases (Trial and Appeal) have been
outstanding for more than a year. Of which 22 lakhs cases are pending for more than 10 years
from the date of their initiation. Majority of defendants are illiterate with very poor level of
awareness vis a vis financially insecure are from a lower socio economic group of people. This is
needless to mention that they are subjected to III Degree torture by Police and also in Jail. They
have become addicted to jail in a way now they have forgotten their family life, being in solitary
confinement, no access to light in their cell and they are least interested to think to come out of
jail as their is no one to take of their cases due to above expressed handicaps . They appear to
have lost all hopes to comeback in their social life. Thus the undertrials are denied their right to
life and personal liberty despite promises in ART 21 of the Constitution.
Thus Jail is today nursery of criminals in other words, who could be reformed by timely trial but
delayed and too much delayed trial has taken them to become hard core criminals.

CONSENT OF TORTURE is an unheard term : the undertrials from low socio financially and
illiterate broken background are occasionally asked to sign blank pages and are forced to submit
as a result of the consent torture.

THE SANITARY CONDITIONS IN PRISONS: on all India basis, the prisons have over
crowding, unsanitary conditions, abysmal medical attention, starvation with pathetic sanitization
under non-livable conditions. The conduct of prison authority is reflected through the above
observations.

Khatri Vs State of Bihar: The height of criminality on behalf of Police Authorities – Police
blinded 80 individuals by criminally puncturing their eyes with needles and dowsing them with
acid. Interrogation by Police to such fallen extent and what happening in Jails with poor
downtrodden low caste SC STs is not a hidden tale.

The COVID 19 when courts did not work and the virtual working further complicated the
position of the undertrial prisons. During the phase of COVID 19 the undertrials increased in
jails multitimes even the migrant labour for petty cases were sent to jail and the evacuation
from jails was nil.

A pathetic case of brutality – Hathras in UP where a dalit girl was brutally raped and killed . Her
dead body was cremated in mid night without informing her poor parents in the presence of
District Magistrate/ Collector IAS and SP Police IPS. A press Reporter Siddique Kappan who
went onsite was charged with a slew of offences including UAP Act , Sedition and a few more.
He was tortured in his cell in Mathura Prison to the extent that his teeth were shattered.
Exoneration for unconstitutionality is not granted to any prisoner authority .

Here it is very important and pertinent to understand that every law and its judicial procedure
system have to be operative as per the rule of law of the constitution.

Let it be tested as to whether the RULE OF LAW is followed.

Rule of Law: As per Edward Coke and further developed by A V DICEY, every democratic
Government is based on the rule of law and never on rule of man, it refers to as law supremacy .
The doctrine of rule of law refers to a set of norms on the principle of liberty, fraternity, non-
discrimination, non-arbitration and accountability. Every government must be subservient to the
law and not the other way around. It rejects the arbitrariness and unrestricted authority. No one
can be considered to be above the law where the rule of law exists. The 3 principles of the rule of
law are -1.Absolute Supremacy of Law, 2. Equality Before Law, 3.Predominance of legal
spirit.

Position of India in following the rule of law : India adheres to the rule of law as the Government
is bound by the constitution which is the rule of law (supreme law). Equality of before law – law
is same for all in all circumstances and every one has to be protected by law. Fundamental rights
are inalienable and universal. The Indian constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law if
violates any section of the constitution , particularly the fundamental rights would be deemed
null and void.

Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India: the first case that sparked a debate regarding rule of law .
Thereafter it was finally resolved in the case of Kesavananda Bharti Vs State of Kerala –
accordingly – Rule of Law is the constitution’s fundamental framework.

The status of undertrial prisons as far as the rule of law is concerned: No body can be
detained, and legitimately be forced to be punished to suffer in body or property, except for a
breach of law before an ordinary court of the Nation. Every thing has to happen as per
established law of the state is known as the rule of law.

On the other hand the undertrials are against the law. As per Supreme Court of India , remarked
some 40 years ago that the significant number of undertrials in jails is a “crying shame on the
judicial system of India”, which is responsible for extended unrequired stay of undertrails in jails
without a trial due to different circumstances.

The recent killing of mobster Vikas Dubey has prompted a debate about the rule of law, and
also use of violence by Govt Institutions. In this regard the Criticism has come from all quarters
including opposition and other political parties as this type of brutal acts violate the foundation
of the rule of law. The essential feature of education and intellectual campaigning is to emphasis
on the importance of the rule of law at every step in life.

The proof of charge must be beyond any doubt and it must be based on judicial appraisal of the
whole body of evidence , all oral, documentary and circumstantial and never a single
examination.

Most significant point is that the trial must be swift so that no one should suffer the tyranny of
undue delay trial.

Legal machinery can find very viable ways to expedite the trial :

By way of establishing chair of cicuit courts in all Distt Jails/central Jails and special jails where
the undetrials if are in jail for bailable offences can be heard through Advocates, called legal
workers/paralegal workers/freshly enrolled advocates as in such cases no high level arguments
are required but before the Magistrate only to be placed the crime and its bailability . In such
cases if the offence is bailable as per Section 2(a), Schedule -1of Cr PC 1973, only argument
before the court required on behalf of advocate is, “Sir, the offence is bailable ”.The court in
such cases is required to follow the rule of law and allow unless there are compelling reasons
discussed above some where. Thus the pendency may be reduced to even zero.

Also by way of invoking the plea bargaining(Cr PC Section 265-A –L) – a significant number of
cases of schedule I can be decided summarily, which is one step of ahead to bail to undetrials for
bailable offences.

The construction for establishing new jails needs first to review and ensure that bailable
offenders are heard and given free and fair opportunity for bail and this exercise will create a lot
of open space for new inmates, giving spacious barracks with better hygienic conditions on one
hand and new life to prisoners and their families who have almost went in distress and mental
depression.

This will double help in evacuating jail and save exchequer (revenue and capital) of the
Government in many ways as implied – maintenance of prisoners in jail will become half. The
cost of construction of new jails will not be required. Manpower in doing all will be saved.
The control of crime is a major target of judicial administration system and to keep offenders in
jail without reason is myopic, casual and little which needs immediate attention to resolve
prudently.

Suggestions: The undertrials under bailable offences must be heard in fast track trials and bail be
granted as a rule of law if otherwise no compelling grounds, through war footing efforts by
courts/circuit courts in Jails by engaging fresh advocates as no high level of advocacy is
required. This will go a long way in resolving the issues of inmates and society suffering from
mental anguish and retarded desire to live with indignity and pride in contradiction with the rule
of law of the constitution, specially as enshrined in Art 21 of the constitution.

Incase the undertrials are granted bail as per the rule of law , it will provide additional enough
space in jails which today are unhygienic in toto due to overcrowded inmates .

The released individuals will be able to resettle and rehabilitate themselves and live family life as
normal citizens.

It will save from irreparable injury due to delay in bail in bailable offences.

Major number of the released inmates will be saved from plunging in to being hard core
criminals.

The jails may be called reform centers if they take care of inmates and he stigma of pendency of
cases will be washed out.

Job opportunities to new advocates will grow when they come out to help inmates for their bail
which is a right and need of hour.

The Govt exchequer will come at ease as far as the maintenance of inmates will come down
multifold and there will not be imminent need to build/establish new jails (recently Delhi Govt
has sent intent to the GoI for funds for building 2 more new jails).

Decided cases in reference-

1. Gudikanti Narsimhulu Vs prosecution – HC of AP.

2. Hussainara KhatoonVs Home Secretary Bihar State.

3. Khatri Vs State of Bihar.

4. Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India.

5. Kesavananda Bharti Vs State of Kerala

Abbreviation:

1. Cr P C 1973- Criminal procedure Code 1973- page-1,8

2. NCT Delhi-National Capital territory Delhi –page 1
3. Sch-1 – Schedule -1---Page-2
4. NCRB- National Crime Record Bureau –Page 2
5. NALSA – National Legal service Authority –Page 2
6. COVID 19- Corona Virus Disease 19-Page 12
7. U A P Act – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967-Page 12

By Diamond Satyarthy, B Tech, MBA, IIM Calcutta, LLB and pursuing LLM from
Mansarovar Global University, Sehore ,MP.

Under guidance : Dr Bharat S Satyarthy, Director, Global College of Law, Ghaziabad, UP.