The statutory text indicates that Section 7(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 does not impose an absolute bar on grant of bail. On the contrary, the Magistrate may grant bail, if satisfied that “there are reasonable grounds for granting bail to such person” and upon complying with the requirement of hearing the married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced. Hence, though Section 7 begins with a non obstante clause which operates in relation to the CrPC, a plain construction of Section 7(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 would indicate that it does not impose a fetter on the power of the Magistrate to grant bail, save and except, for the stipulation that before doing so, the married Muslim Woman, upon whom talaq is pronounced, must be heard and there should be a satisfaction of the Magistrate of the existence of reasonable grounds for granting bail to the person. This implies that even while entertaining an application for grant of anticipatory bail for an offence under the Act, the competent court must hear the married muslim woman who has made the complaint, as prescribed under Section 7(c) of the Act. Only after giving the married Muslim woman a hearing, can the competent court grant bail to the accused. Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala, (2021) 1 SCC 733.
Tag Archives: bail
The implied exclusion of Section 438 essentially flows from Section 1(4) of the 2015 Act that confers on the provisions made therein in respect of arrest and detention the character of preeminence. The section is a clear manifestation of the legislative intent that the provisions of the 2015 Act dealing with arrest and detention must necessarily prevail over any other law for the time being in force. The 2015 Act represents an all encompassing and self contained code laying in place a separate and distinct procedure liable to be followed in case of arrest or detention of a child in conflict with law. It places significant and special safeguards in respect of the apprehension of a child in conflict with law. It is in that sense not an incarceration or detention by the police as normally understood. The extension of the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code would clearly interfere with and disrupt the statutory process that is otherwise liable to be followed upon apprehension of a child. It must consequently be held that once a first information is registered or information otherwise recorded by the SJPU or the CWPO with regard to a child in conflict with law, the provisions of Section 438 stand impliedly excluded. In such a situation it is the provisions made in Sections 10 and 12 of the 2015 Act which alone must be permitted to operate and recognised in law to be applicable. The only limited window in which Section 438 can be held to apply is the pre recordal of information stage with regard to an offense allegedly committed by a child. As noticed above, Section 10 comes into play only once information in respect of an offense comes to be recorded. Prior to that a child apprehending detention or deprivation of liberty is accorded no protection or avenue of redress under the 2015 Act. It is within this narrow confine alone that his right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions or the High Court must be recognised to exist and preserved. Shahaab Ali v. State of U.P., Cri. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 597 of 2020 decided on 20.01.2020.
Economic Offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, it was held as under:
“Economic Offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24.
A “regular parole” may be given in the following cases:
(i) Serious illness of a family member;
(ii) Critical conditions in the family on account of accident or death of a family member;
(iii) Marriage of any member of the family of the convict;
(iv) Delivery of a child by the wife of the convict if there is no other family member to take care of the spouse at home;
(v) Serious damage to life or property of the family of the convict including damage caused by natural calamities;
(vi) To maintain family and social ties;
(vii) To pursue the filing of a special leave petition before the court against a judgment delivered by the High Court convicting or upholding the conviction, as the case may be.
Furlough on the other hand, is a brief release from the prison. It is conditional and is given in case of long term imprisonment. The period of sentence spent on furlough by the prisoners need not be undergone by him as is done in the case of parole. Furlough is granted as a good conduct remission.
The differences between parole and furlough are as under:
(i) Both parole and furlough are conditional release.
(ii) Parole can be granted in case of short-term imprisonment whereas in furlough it is granted in case of long-term imprisonment.
(iii) Duration of parole extends to one month whereas in the case of furlough it extends to fourteen days maximum.
(iv) Parole is granted by Divisional Commissioner and furlough is granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons.
(v) For parole, specific reason is required, whereas furlough is meant for breaking the monotony of imprisonment.
(vi) The term of imprisonment is not included in the computation of the term of parole, whereas it is vice versa in furlough.
(vii) Parole can be granted number of times whereas there is limitation in the case of furlough.
(viii) Since furlough is not granted for any particular reason, it can be denied in the interest of the society. Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55.
While cancelling the bail under Section 439(2) of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well-recognised principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing the accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this Court are much wider, this Court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail. Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 12 SCC 180.