Ojaank IAS Academy

OJAANK IAS ACADEMY

๐ˆ๐๐๐Ž๐•๐€๐“๐ˆ๐Ž๐ ๐ˆ๐ ๐„๐ƒ๐”๐‚๐€๐“๐ˆ๐Ž๐

OJAANK IAS ACADEMY

3 important decisions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on investigation, bail and jail

Share with

While police reforms are talked about a little in India, there is little talk about the human rights of those accused of a crime and undertrials. The increasing number of cases in the courts and the increasing number of undertrials in jails are of great concern to both the judiciary and the executive.

Notice required before inquiry

Under Section 41 of the CrPC Act, a police officer can arrest a person even without a magistrate order or warrant. Sub-section 41(a) of the same section mentions those things under which there is a provision to give notice before arrest is made. Any suspect or accused against whom a complaint is lodged in a case or is known to have committed a serious offence, must be given notice before he is called for a police investigation. If the accused appears before the police according to the notice, then he should not be arrested on the basis of complaint or suspicion. But if a person does not appear before the police under the notice, then the police can arrest him after getting a warrant from the magistrate court.

New guidelines for grant of bail in a time bound manner

As per the new guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the bail application should be disposed of within 2 weeks and the anticipatory bail application within 6 weeks. Since the conviction rate of crimes is extremely low and acquittal after continuous detention is an injustice to one’s human rights.

Therefore, the Supreme Court has sought a report in this regard from the High Court and the State Governments. The court said that these laws related to bail are from the time of the British and they had made these laws to suppress the Indian people. Therefore, the court has suggested the central government to make a separate law on bail.

Compensation for more imprisonment than punishment

In a Chhattisgarh case, the Supreme Court has ordered the Chhattisgarh government to pay a fine of Rs 7.50 lakh to a person. In fact, this person was not released after completing his sentence because he had not paid the amount of compensation fixed by the court.

The court has held this to be a violation of Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. During the additional period of punishment, that person was deprived of liberty, employment, family and right to life.

These orders of the Supreme Court are not only important from the point of view of human rights, but they also establish coherence with the fundamental rights provided by the Indian Constitution. Now there is a need that the government should follow these guidelines and law making orders of the Supreme Court.


Share with

Leave a Comment


เคนเคฟเค‚เคฆเฅ€ เคฎเฅ‡เค‚ เคฆเฅ‡เค–เฅ‡เค‚


Videos


Register

Whatsapp

error: Content is protected !!