Introduction:
The criminal justice system plays a vital role in any democracy by ensuring that justice is served. The process of arrest, trial, and acquittal is fundamental to this system, and the legal framework that governs it is subject to continuous scrutiny and refinement. In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court made significant recommendations regarding Section 438 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [BNSS] concerning the bail requirements for individuals who have been acquitted.
The Delhi High Court’s judgment, delivered in the case of Firasat Hussain vs. State of NCT of Delhi (CRL.A. 1308/2015) on October 3, 2023, sheds light on an important aspect of the criminal justice process. In this article, we will delve into the details of this landmark judgment and analyze the proposed changes to Section 438 of CrPC (BNSS).
Understanding the Context:
To appreciate the significance of the Delhi High Court’s judgment, it’s essential to understand the context and circumstances that led to this legal development. The case in question involved Firasat Hussain, who, despite being acquitted, faced challenges in securing his release due to the requirement of furnishing a bond in accordance with Section 437A of CrPC.
The court’s observation noted that the appellant had received a medical report during the pendency of his appeal. The report, dated 03.03.2018, from the Director of the Institute of Human Behavior & Allied Sciences (IHBAS), indicated a medical condition diagnosed as a case of Dysthymia with Severe Depressive Episode. The appellant showed significant improvement after appropriate treatment, and the report stated that the patient was behaviorally stable and could be managed on an outpatient basis.
In response to this situation, the court took action. Mr. Jawahar Raja, an advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in interpreting Section 437A of Cr.P.C. This move aimed to clarify the requirements imposed on acquitted individuals to execute bail bonds with sureties in anticipation of further appeals in higher courts.
Court’s Observations:
The judgment points out the core issue at hand, particularly the mandatory requirement for an acquitted individual to provide a personal bond with surety, as per Section 437A of Cr.P.C. This requirement has been a source of concern in cases where the accused cannot furnish the surety and, as a result, remains in jail despite their acquittal.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that new criminal laws were introduced in Parliament and referred to the Select Committee for further consideration. The court recognized that these new laws addressed the issue raised in the case of acquitted individuals being unable to furnish sureties.
However, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court examined the proposed Section 483 of the New Criminal Laws and concluded that it did not entirely resolve the issue. Section 483 stipulated that an accused was required to furnish a bail bond with surety to appear before the next Appellate Court when such a court issued a notice regarding any appeal or petition against the judgment of the respective court. Importantly, the use of the word ‘shall’ in this context made it mandatory for the accused to provide a bail bond with surety.
Court’s Recommendations:
In response to the inadequacy of the proposed Section 483, the Delhi High Court made crucial recommendations. The court suggested that the Select Committee should consider replacing the word ‘shall’ with ‘may’ and replacing the term ‘bail or bail bond’ with ‘personal bond with or without surety.’
The court acknowledged that while new criminal laws addressing the issue were under consideration and had been presented in Parliament, it would take some time for these modifications to be implemented. Therefore, in the interim, the court issued a directive to the trial courts. In cases related to Section 437A of CrPC, the word ‘shall’ was to be interpreted as ‘may,’ and ‘bail or bail bond’ was to be interpreted as ‘personal bond with or without surety.’
This directive aimed to provide relief to individuals who had been acquitted but were unable to secure their release due to the strict requirements of furnishing a bond with surety. The court recognized that in such cases, the use of the word ‘shall’ imposed an undue burden on the acquitted individuals and recommended a more flexible interpretation.
Conclusion:
The recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of Firasat Hussain vs. State of NCT of Delhi has highlighted a critical aspect of the criminal justice system. The court’s recommendation to revise Section 438 of the new CrPC (BNSS) regarding bail requirements after acquittal is a significant step toward improving the legal framework.
The court’s suggestion to replace the word ‘shall’ with ‘may’ and ‘bail or bail bond’ with ‘personal bond with or without surety’ reflects a pragmatic approach to the challenges faced by individuals who are acquitted but remain in custody due to an inability to meet surety requirements.
It is essential for the government and the Parliament’s Select Committee to consider and implement these recommendations promptly. The proposed changes will contribute to a more just and fair criminal justice system, ensuring that individuals who have been acquitted are not subjected to unnecessary hardships.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s recommendations serve as a testament to the continuous evolution and improvement of the legal framework, promoting the principles of justice, fairness, and compassion within the criminal justice system. It is a step toward a more equitable and humane society where individuals are not unduly burdened by stringent bail requirements after their acquittal.
Author Bio
