LI Network
Published on: November 07, 2023 at 00:03 IST
The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Union of India in response to a plea challenging the constitutionality of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Section 437A deals with the provision allowing accused individuals to secure their release on bail during the appeals process by providing bail bonds with sureties.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, has sought the Central government’s response on the matter and requested the assistance of Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani.
The plea, filed by Ajay Verma, argues that Sections 437A and 354(d) of the Code are contradictory because 354(d) mandates courts to release the accused.
The petitioner also referred to a judgment in the Nannu & Ors v State of UP case, where the Allahabad High Court ruled that, in cases of acquittal without furnishing a bond, a personal bond should suffice.
The plea highlighted that both the Kerala High Court and the Delhi High Court have previously interpreted the use of the word “shall” in Section 437A as a directive rather than a mandatory requirement.
Furthermore, the provision was criticized for lacking proportionality, as it may lead to continued incarceration of accused individuals who lack financial resources and cannot find sureties.
The petitioner emphasized that this insistence on bail with sureties could result in unjustified incarceration, given the shorter appeal period (60 days) compared to the bond’s duration under Section 437A (180 days).
These arguments were presented to assert that Section 437A not only hinders the administration of criminal justice but also violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.