Scribd
Upload
8 views3 pages

Internship Assignment Internshala

The document outlines a legal research assignment focused on securing regular bail for an accused in judicial custody under various IPC sections. It highlights relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments that support bail due to procedural flaws in the arrest, prolonged custody without trial, and the completion of the investigation. The conclusions drawn from these judgments emphasize the importance of personal liberty and the need for bail in economic offences where no further custodial interrogation is required.

Uploaded by

gumzoomia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views3 pages

Internship Assignment Internshala

The document outlines a legal research assignment focused on securing regular bail for an accused in judicial custody under various IPC sections. It highlights relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments that support bail due to procedural flaws in the arrest, prolonged custody without trial, and the completion of the investigation. The conclusions drawn from these judgments emphasize the importance of personal liberty and the need for bail in economic offences where no further custodial interrogation is required.

Uploaded by

gumzoomia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Internship Assignment: Legal Research on Regular Bail

Case Scenario Summary:


 The accused is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B
IPC.
 Chargesheet was filed three months ago.
 Case is at the stage of framing of charges.
 Accused has been in custody for eight months (including five days of police custody).
 Arrest occurred three years after the initial complaint.
 Section 41A CrPC notice was not served prior to arrest.
Objective: To identify and summarize relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments
that support the grant of regular bail in this context, focusing on:
1. Delay in arrest post-FIR
2. Non-compliance with Section 41A CrPC
3. Prolonged judicial custody post-chargesheet
4. Absence of requirement for further custodial interrogation
5. Bail in economic/white-collar offences at the pre-trial stage

1. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273


The Supreme Court emphasized that arrests should not be made mechanically, especially in
cases punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment. It mandated that Section 41A
CrPC notice must be issued prior to arrest unless reasons are recorded. The Magistrate must
also scrutinize the necessity of arrest.
Relevance: In the present case, arrest was made without serving a Section 41A notice,
rendering the arrest legally questionable and supporting bail.

2. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51


This judgment reiterated and expanded the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, particularly for
economic offences. It held that arrest post-chargesheet is not mandatory unless custodial
interrogation is required. Courts were directed to favour bail if Section 41A was not complied
with and investigation was complete.
Relevance: Chargesheet is already filed, and no custodial interrogation is required. Section
41A was not complied with, strengthening grounds for bail.

3. Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22


The Court observed that personal liberty under Article 21 is paramount. Bail is the rule and
jail the exception. Pre-trial detention should not be used as punishment.
Relevance: The accused has already spent eight months in custody without trial
commencing, justifying release on bail.

4. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791


The Court granted bail despite serious economic offences, noting that the gravity of the
offence cannot be the sole ground for denying bail once the investigation is complete. Courts
must not deny bail based on speculation.
Relevance: Investigation is complete and the trial is yet to begin. Prosecution has not shown
any risk justifying continued custody.

5. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40


Bail was granted in a high-profile economic offence case. The Court held that seriousness of
the offence does not justify indefinite pre-trial detention. Liberty cannot be curtailed merely
because charges are serious.
Relevance: This case directly supports granting bail in white-collar crimes when investigation
is over and trial is delayed.

6. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260


This judgment laid the groundwork for arrest jurisprudence, holding that arrests must be
justified and not carried out mechanically. Arrest without necessity infringes personal liberty.
Relevance: The delayed arrest and lack of Section 41A notice indicate an unjustified arrest,
supporting bail.

7. Court on its Own Motion v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12306
The Delhi High Court quashed proceedings due to non-compliance with Section 41A. The
Court stressed that procedural safeguards under CrPC must be strictly followed.
Relevance: Strengthens the claim that the accused’s arrest was unlawful due to failure to
serve Section 41A notice.
8. Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230
The Court held that where charges are serious but investigation is over and trial is yet to
begin, bail should be favoured. Delay in trial proceedings is a relevant consideration.
Relevance: The accused has been in custody for eight months and trial is pending. This
judgment supports bail under such circumstances.

9. Manoj Jayaswal v. CBI, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1734


The High Court granted bail in a coal block allocation case, holding that post-chargesheet
detention serves no useful purpose. Continued incarceration cannot be justified when
investigation is complete.
Relevance: The facts are comparable. With chargesheet filed and no need for further
custody, bail should be granted.

10. Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1


The Supreme Court cautioned against using criminal law as an oppressive tool. Arrest must
be a necessity, not a routine formality. Bail should be liberally granted when liberty is at
stake.
Relevance: This judgment supports a liberty-centric approach and cautions against
unnecessary custody, especially when the accused has cooperated with the investigation.

Conclusion: The combined legal position from the above judgments strongly favours the
grant of regular bail in the present factual scenario. The arrest appears procedurally flawed
due to non-service of Section 41A notice. The accused has already undergone substantial
judicial custody, the investigation is complete, and the trial is yet to begin. Courts have
consistently held that continued incarceration under such circumstances is unwarranted,
particularly in economic offences where there is no risk of flight or tampering with evidence.
These precedents provide legal support for seeking bail.

You might also like