Undertrials Unable To Comply With Bail Conditions Entitled To Legal Services Assistance Even If Represented By Private Lawyers: Supreme Court
The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to undertake the exercise across all 75 districts, holding that the onus lies on the State to ensure such persons are released from custody.
The Supreme Court has held that there cannot be any differentiation between under-trial prisoners who have the assistance of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and those who have engaged private counsel, when both have been granted bail but could not be released for non-compliance with bail conditions.
The Court observed that merely because private lawyers have been engaged, assistance from DLSA counsel cannot be denied, and that the onus lies on the State to make sure that these persons are released from custody.
The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to undertake an exercise, in consultation with the respective DLSAs, for under-trial prisoners who have been granted bail but remain in custody for want of compliance with bail conditions. It made the directions applicable to all 75 districts of the State and requested the concerned Courts to suitably modify the bail conditions in cases brought to their notice.
The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “This direction shall be applicable even to those under-trial prisoners who could not comply with the bail conditions, despite the fact that they have engaged the private lawyers. There cannot be any differentiation between the under-trial prisoners, who have the assistance of District Legal Services Authority and those who have engaged private counsel. The fact remains that both the categories are similar with respect to non-compliance of the bail conditions imposed. Merely because the private lawyers have been engaged, the assistance from the District Legal Services Authority counsel cannot be denied and also the benefit that has been extended to such of persons who have already been rendered assistance by the District Legal Services Authorities.”
Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal appeared as Amicus Curiae, while Senior Advocate Pradeep Mishra appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court was hearing applications seeking clarification/directions and intervention in the suo motu writ petition In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail.
It was submitted before the Court that across 20 districts, 264 under-trial prisoners who had been granted bail could not be released for want of execution of sureties and other conditions imposed by the concerned Trial Courts.
The State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that out of the 264 under-trial prisoners, only 158 had been released, and that an appropriate decision would be taken with respect to the remaining 106 prisoners.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) submitted that periodical reviews are undertaken every month with the active participation of the DLSAs, and that the cases not yet dealt with would be added to the meeting to be convened next month. This, it was submitted, was why 106 under-trial prisoners were yet to be released.
It was further pointed out that the statistics available covered only 20 districts, and the exercise had to be undertaken for the remaining 55 districts. The State submitted that the needful would be done within a reasonable time.
Taking note of the submissions, the Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to undertake the exercise for the under-trial prisoners who have been granted bail but could not be released for want of compliance of conditions of bail, in consultation with the respective District Legal Service Authorities.
On the role of DLSAs where private counsel has been engaged, the Court remarked, “Litigation cannot be adversarial in that sense. Therefore, notwithstanding the presence of counsel appearing for the accused person who have been granted bail, further assistance can be rendered by the District Legal Services Authorities to them.”
Placing the responsibility on the State, the Court observed, “In any case, the onus lies on the State to make sure that these persons are released from custody.”
The Court also requested the concerned Courts to take up those cases which were brought into notice by the respective District Legal Services Authorities and modify the condition(s) suitably, so that the under-trial prisoners can be released accordingly.
The Court clarified, “Needless to state that the aforementioned directions shall apply to all the under-trial prisoners spanning across 75 districts.”
The matter has been listed on 20.01.2027.
Cause Title: In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4/2021]
Appearances:
Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Pradeep Mishra (State of Uttar Pradesh), Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, Senior Additional Advocate General Arunabh Chowdhury, Additional Advocates General Shiv Mangal Sharma, Amit Sharma and Shekhar Raj Sharma, along with Advocates-on-Record and Advocates for various States and NALSA.