The Supreme Court recently underlined that “there is a pressing need” for reform in the law related to bail and called on the government to consider framing a special legislation on the lines of the law in the United Kingdom. A two-judge Bench issued certain clarifications to an older judgment delivered in July 2021 on bail reform (Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI).The ruling is essentially a reiteration of several crucial principles of criminal procedure. Referring to the state of jails in the country, where over two-thirds lodged are under trials, the Supreme Court underlined that arrest is a draconian measure that needs to be used sparingly. Theoretically, the court also linked the idea of indiscriminate arrests to magistrates ignoring the rule of “bail, not jail” to a colonial mindset.The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) was first drafted in 1882 and continues to be in use with amendments from time to time. The Cr.P.C. does not define the word bail but only categories offences under the Indian Penal Code as ‘bailable’ and ‘non-bailable’. The Cr.P.C. empowers magistrates to grant bail for bailable offences as a matter of right. This would involve release on furnishing a bail bond, without or without security. In case of Non-bailable offences, a magistrate would determine if the accused is fit to be released on bail.Non-bailable offences are cognizable, which enables the police officer to arrest without a warrant. Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, lays down that a person accused of a bailable offence under I.P.C. can be granted bail. On the other hand, Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down that the accused does not have the right to bail in non-bailable offences. It is the discretion of the court to grant bail in case of non-bailable offences. This article exclusively deals with methods to be adopted for bail reforms and the guidelines of the Supreme Court in this regard.

Bail Reform, Non-bailable, Bailable, Anticipatory bail, Interim bail, Public Safety , Recidivism