Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently granted statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam in a case involving charges of sedition and unlawful activity under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). This decision came after Imam’s bail plea was challenged, and despite the court’s ruling, he remains in custody. The statutory bail was granted under Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows bail when the accused has served half of the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offense. This ruling comes after Imam spent nearly four years in prison as an undertrial in the case.

Grounds for Imam’s Bail

Sharjeel Imam faced charges under Section 13 of the UAPA, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years, and under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code for sedition, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In cases involving life imprisonment, ten years is considered half the sentence for the purpose of granting statutory bail.

A Supreme Court ruling in 2021 stayed the operation of Section 124A, which penalizes sedition, effectively halting trials on sedition charges, including Imam’s, pending the provision’s constitutional validity determination. With no immediate prospects of a speedy trial, statutory bail became the primary avenue for Imam’s release, especially since previous bail requests had been rejected on merits. Although granted statutory bail, Imam remains in custody due to his involvement in another case related to the 2020 North East Delhi riots and several other cases across multiple states, including Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. He is not currently in custody for these cases, thus not requiring additional bail applications for release.

Section 436-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

About

Section 436-A CrPC was introduced to protect the rights of undertrial prisoners who are held in jail for extended periods awaiting investigation, inquiry, or trial. The provision aims to prevent the prolonged incarceration of individuals who have not been convicted of any crime, aligning with the fundamental principle of “presumption of innocence until proven guilty.” Before the enactment of Section 436-A, many undertrial prisoners were unjustly detained for significant durations, violating their rights and undermining the principles of justice and fairness within the criminal justice system.

Section 436-A CrPC

Section 436-A of the CrPC limits the duration of detention for undertrial prisoners during the investigation, inquiry, or trial of an offense not punishable by death to one-half of the maximum imprisonment period specified for that offense under the relevant law. Upon reaching this threshold, the court is mandated to release the undertrial on a personal bond, with or without sureties. Enacted in 2005, this provision addresses the issue of overcrowding in prisons caused by a large population of undertrial prisoners, particularly those facing charges with shorter sentences. It offers relief to undertrials by ensuring their release after serving half of the maximum imprisonment period specified for the offense they are charged with, promoting fairness and efficiency in the criminal justice system.

Legal Provision of Section 436-A CrPC

As per Section 436-A CrPC, a person who has spent one-half of the maximum period of the prescribed sentence as an undertrial shall be released on bail. It states that where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry, or trial under the CrPC, of an offense under any law (not being an offense for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offense under that law, he shall be released by the court on his personal bond with or without sureties.

The court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons recorded in writing, order the continued detention of such a person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of a personal bond with or without sureties. No person shall, in any case, be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry, or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offense under that law. When determining the duration of detention for granting bail under this section, any period of detention caused by delays in proceedings caused by the accused shall be excluded.

Other Protections for Undertrials

Bail for Bailable Offenses

According to Section 436 CrPC, for all bailable offenses, it is mandatory for courts to grant bail. An accused willing to furnish a bail bond must be granted bail in such cases. However, for non-bailable offenses, the decision to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court.

Default Bail to Prevent Lengthy Incarceration

To prevent lengthy periods of incarceration without trial, courts also grant default bail. Section 167(2) of the CrPC stipulates that the police have 60 days to complete the investigation and file a final report before the court. This period extends to 90 days for offenses punishable by death, life imprisonment, or a minimum jail term of ten years. If the police fail to conclude the investigation and submit a chargesheet within the specified period, default bail is granted. It’s important to note that default bail applies only to Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) crimes. Special legislations such as UAPA may have relaxed timelines for police investigations.

Scope of Section 436-A CrPC

Discretionary Relief

While Section 436-A provides a framework for the release of undertrial prisoners who have served half of the maximum sentence for their offense, the grant of bail is not automatic. The first proviso grants the court discretion to withhold such relief if it deems further detention necessary, even if the conditions outlined in the provision are met.

Court’s Authority to Deny Bail

The first proviso empowers the court to deny bail if it believes that the continued detention of the undertrial prisoner is warranted, despite the satisfaction of the prerequisites specified in Section 436-A. This discretionary power allows the court to consider factors such as the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, or the risk of flight.

Absolute Relief in Specific Circumstances

Conversely, the second proviso clarifies that the relief granted under Section 436-A is absolute if the undertrial prisoner has already served the maximum term prescribed for the offense they are charged with. In such cases, the court is bound to release the prisoner on bail, as further detention would contravene the provisions of the law.

Relevant Cases Related to Section 436-A CrPC

In Hasan Ali Khan v. State (2011), the Bombay High Court granted bail to an undertrial prisoner accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after the individual had served half of the maximum term prescribed by the special statute. The court observed that, considering the Supreme Court’s guidance in Bhim Singh v. Union of India, it was unnecessary to delve into the merits of the matter. Thus, by virtue of Section 436-A CrPC, the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Conclusion

The recent grant of statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam, based on Section 436-A CrPC, underscores the protection of undertrial prisoners’ rights. Despite facing charges carrying significant sentences, the halt in sedition trials and the technical grounds for bail have brought attention to the fairness and efficiency of the criminal justice system. This case highlights the importance of Section 436-A in safeguarding the rights of individuals awaiting trial and ensuring that prolonged detention without conviction is minimized.