Bail and bail procedures attempt to address some of the issues that arise from this question of what to do with defendants who have been accused of committing an offence but who are awaiting trial and thus still legally innocent. In this article, we shall discuss provision of bail in bailable offences.
List of Sub-Topics:
- Introduction
- Right to be Released on Bail
- Bailable Offences
- Bail in Bailable Offences
- Application for Bail under S. 478 BNSS
- Standard Operating Procedures
- Refusal to Grant Bail
- Cancellation of Bail
- Conclusion
It is a basic principle of criminal law that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. While the criminal justice system wants to ensure that accused persons will attend trials and be present to receive any punishment instituted if found guilty of the crime for which she/he is charged, the presumption of innocence should place significant restrictions on the measures the government can take to ensure the presence of the accused for such purposes. Bail and bail procedures attempt to address some of the issues that arise from this question of what to do with defendants who have been accused of committing an offence but who are awaiting trial and thus still legally innocent. In this article, we shall discuss provision of bail in bailable offences.
Bail:
According to Section 2(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 “bail” means release of a person accused of or suspected of commission of an offence from the custody of law upon certain conditions imposed by an officer or Court on execution by such person of a bond or a bail bond.
Chapter-XXXV (Ss. 478 to 496) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with various provisions as to bail and bonds. It lays down as to when bail is the right of the accused, when bail is the discretion of the Court, in what circumstances said discretion can be exercised, what are the terms and conditions which would be required to be observed by the accused, who has been released on bail and what powers are vested in the Court in the event of accused committing default of bail order.
Right to be Released on Bail:
โArrestโ means โa seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.โ The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Chapter V (Ss. 35 to 62) talks about Arrest of a Person but it does not define arrest anywhere.
The term โDetentionโ can be defined as, โWhen the Police Officer or any other Authority or any individual hold or detain an individual or group of persons under the suspicion of an illegal act but does not charge them with the crime is known as the Detention.โ
Article 21 of the Constitution ensures the right to liberty of every person until and unless he proven guilty. Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution also states that the arrested person must be informed the grounds of his arrest. It also gives right to the arrested person to inform to his family members, any relative, or his friend about his arrest. Moreover, it is right of arrested person to know that even in a non-bailable offences he may be granted bail, if a bail is granted by the court after taking into consideration the nature or heinousness of the offence.
As per Section 47 BNSS, whenever a person is arrested without a warrant, it is the duty of the police officer to communicate the full detail of the offence for which the person is arrested. Also, if the offence for which the person is arrested is a bailable one, it is the duty of the police to inform that he is entitled to be released on bail after giving surety.
In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 SCC (4) 260 case, the Supreme Court held that a person arrested has the right to inform any of his friend or relative or family member of his choice, about his detainment. The police officer shall also inform the arrested person about his rights when he is being brought to the police station.
Section 167 also provide right to the accused to be released on bail if investigation relating to his offence has not been completed within sixty days or ninety days from the date of his detention. This is also known default bail.
In Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs State of Maharashtra 2001 (5) SCC 453 the court granted default bail to the accused as the police officers fail to aquire evidence against him within the time limit of investigation as mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 167.
As per Section 478 BNSS, whenever a person accused of a bailable offence is arrested without a warrant and is prepared to give bail, such person shall be released on bail. The discretion to decide the bail amount is with the Court or with the officer, as the case may be. Section 478 BNSS is meant for any person who is arrested or brought before the court except a person accused of a non-bailable offence.
In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447 case, Justice Krishna Iyer for the first time raised the issue of unfair bail system in India and suggested rethinking over the issue
In Shaik Layak v. The State of A. P., 1981 CriLJ 954 case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that while granting bail on conditions, any condition which is in derogation of an accusedโs fundamental rights cannot be imposed.
In Moti Ram v. State of M.P., AIR 1978 SC 1594 case, Justice Iyer laid down that judges should be more inclined towards bail and not towards jail.
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2014 SC 2756 case, the Supreme Court held that all such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine; police officers shall not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate shall not authorise detention casually and mechanically. Failure to comply with these directions, shall, apart from rendering police officers concerned liable for departmental action, also make them liable to be punished for contempt of court. Judicial Magistrate authorising detention without recording reasons shall be liable for departmental action by appropriate High Court.
Bailable Offence:
According to Section 2(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, 2023 “bailable offence” means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule, or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force; and “non-bailable offence” means any other offence.
Bailable offences are specified in the first schedule of the Sanhita. In such offences, the suspect (accused) may pledge some property with the Court and be released from jail on the condition that he will appear for the trial. Any offence that has not been classified as bailable is a non-bailable offence.
The first schedule of the Sanhita is divided into two parts. It is pertinent to point out that individual offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 have been specifically declared as bailable or non-bailable in the first part of the First Schedule to Sanhita. However, in the absence of any such declaration under such parent Act, the general rules mentioned in the second part of the First Schedule to Sanhita have to be referred to, for deciding whether that offence is bailable or non-bailable. As per the last item of the First Schedule, an offence in order to be bailable would have to be an offence that is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with a fine only.
In the case of a bailable offence, the grant of bail is a matter of right of the Accused. It may be either given by a police officer who is having the custody of Accused or by the court.
Characteristics of Bailable Offences:
- Bailable offences are considered less serious in nature.
- As a general rule bailable offence are those in which punishment is less than 3 years or fine or both. But there are some exceptions to this rule.
- In a bailable offence, bail can be claimed as a right.
- The right of bail is under Section 478 of BNSS
- In the case of a bailable offence, the grant of bail is a matter of right of the Accused.
- In the case of a bailable offence, the grant of bail may be either given by a police officer who is having the custody of Accused or by the court.
- Any Magistrate is empowered to try the cases of bailable offences.
- The accused may be released on bail, on executing a bond, known as โbail bondโ, with or without furnishing sureties.
Examples of Bailable Offences:
Being a member of an unlawful assembly, rioting, bribery, simple hurt are examples of bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
In order to apply for bail in the case of a bailable offence, the person needs to fill a form of bail i.e. Form No. 47 which is given in the first schedule and apply for bail and the Court will have to grant bail.
In Abdul Aziz v. State of U.P.ยธ2002 Cri LJ 2913 case, the Court observed that the first Schedule of CrPC (The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) consists of two parts, the first part is regarding the offences under the I.P.C. (The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and the second part is regarding offences against other law. The second part provides that if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years of fine only it shall be bailable and can be tried by any Magistrate.
In Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Pushottam Mondkar, AIR 1958 SC 376 case, the Court observed that it cannot be disputed that S. 436 of CrPC (S. 478 BNSS) recognizes that a person accused of a bailable offence has a right to be enlarged on bail.
Bail in Bailable Offences under S. 478 BNSS (S. 436 CrPC)/Regular Bail:
Bare Act Provisions:
Section 478 BNSS:
In what cases bail to be taken.
(1) When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears Power to commute sentence. Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases. Concurrent power of Central Government in case of death sentences. State Government to act after concurrence with Central Government in certain cases or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail:
Provided that such officer or Court, if he or it thinks fit, may, and shall, if such person is indigent and is unable to furnish surety, instead of taking bail bond from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
Explanation.โWhere a person is unable to give bail bond within a week of the date of his arrest, it shall be a sufficient ground for the officer or the Court to presume that he is an indigent person for the purposes of this proviso:
Provided further that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 135 or section 492.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), where a person has failed to comply with the conditions of the bond or bail bond as regards the time and place of attendance, the Court may refuse to release him on bail, when on a subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the Court or is brought in custody and any such refusal shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Court to call upon any person bound by such bond or bail bond to pay the penalty thereof under section 491.
Comment:
Corresponding Section of CrPC is Section 436.
Analysis:
Section 478 BNSS provides for the release on bail of a person accused of a bailable offense. This Section is mandatory in nature and the court or the police has no discretion in the matter. Any accused person arrested for a bailable offence willing to provide bail must be released. The only discretion available with the police is to release the accused either on a personal bond or with sureties.
It is provided that if the police officer or magistrate believes that the accused is indigent or poor and cannot afford the surety amount, he may release the accused on the execution of a bond without the surety. It is further explained that if the accused is unable to obtain bail within one week of his arrest, the police officer and the court may presume that the person is indigent or poor and may grant bail to such an accused without surety.
In cases where the accused is unable to provide bail, the police officer must produce the accused person before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest as specified under s. 58 BNSS.
Subsequently, when the person accused of an offense is produced before a Magistrate and is willing to furnish bail, then the Magistrate must release the accused person and the only discretion available is to release either on personal bond or a bond with sureties. The Magistrate cannot authorize detention of a person who is willing to furnish bail with or without sureties even for the purposes of aiding the investigation.
According to Section 478(2) BNSS, an individual who absconds or breaches the terms and conditions of his bail bond when discharged on bail in a bailable case on a previous occasion must therefore not be authorised to post bail when brought to court on any specified date in the future, even if the offence is bailable. The court can also order the surety to pay the penalty under Section 491 of the Code.
Under section 478 BNSS, bail can be granted provided following conditions are fulfilled:
- When the person asking for bail is a person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or
- Appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail.
When a person is arrested on the suspicion of committing non-bailable offence but later on at any stage of investigation, enquiry or trial it is found that there are no reasonable ground for commission of non-bailable offence by him but there are grounds for conducting further enquiry then such person can be released on bail as per section 480(2) by both police officer and magistrate.
In Rasiklal v. Kishore s/o Khanchand Wadhwani, AIR 2009 SC 1341 case, the Supreme Court held that the right to bail for bailable offences is an absolute and in-defeasible right and no discretion can be exercised as the words of s. 436 CrPC (S. 478 BNSS) are imperative and the person accused of an offence is bound to be released as soon as the bail is furnished. The Court further observed that there is no need for the complainant or the public prosecutor to be heard in cases where a person is charged with a bailable offence. Moreover, the court has no discretion to impose any conditions except to demand security.
In Monit Malhotra vs State Of Rajasthan 1991 CriLJ 806 case, the Rajasthan High Court held that there is no provision in the CrPC (Sanhita) for requiring an accused already released on bail by the police officer to furnish fresh bail and bonds. The bail bonds are submitted before the police officer for the purpose of appearing before the court, and if this undertaking has already been given, a fresh undertaking for the same effect should not be asked for. Bail and bonds should usually be for appearance not only before the Magistrate’s court but also, if the case is triable by the Court of Session, before the Court of Session unless there are specific reasons against it.
In Amar Nath Singh v The State of Jharkhand, 26 October, 2021 case, where a person has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail-bond as regards the time and place of attendance, the Court may by virtue of section 436 (2) CrPC (478(2) BNSS) refuse to release him on bail, when on a subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the Court.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 case, Justice Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Iyer highlighted the faulty bail system which needs reconsideration. In this case attention was brought to the impact of indigence of an accused on his right of bail.
In R.D. Upadhyay v. Sate of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 1946 case, it was brought to the notice of court that there are many undertrials languishing in jail for non-furnishing of surety despite bail order granted in favour of them. It was held by court barriers certain categories of cases, court can consider release of such prisoners on personal bond.
In Lambert Kroger v. Enforcement Directorate, 2000 CriLJ 2125 case, the Delhi High Court laid down that no person can be denied bail just because of the reason of his being a foreign national. Court canโt discriminate on the ground of nationality for granting bail. To secure his presence before the courts as and when required till the completion of trial, he can be released conditionally. Such condition can be impounding of Passport to restrain him from fleeing from trial.
Application for Bail Under Section 478 BNSS:
Standard Operating Procedure/Protocol for Regular Bail:
Period of Disposal of Application for Regular and Anticipatory Bail:
In Hussain v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 1362 case, the Supreme Court said that โWe also feel delay in disposal of bail applications and cases where trials are stayed are priority areas for monitoring. Timeline for disposal of bail applications ought to be fixed by the High Court. As far as possible, bail applications in subordinate courts should ordinarily be decided within one week and in High Courts within two-three weeks.
Primary Considerations in Grant of Regular Bail:
Following points should be considered during grant of regular bail:
- The seriousness of the offence; likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; impact of release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses; likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence (Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC Online 307).
- Nature of accusation; nature of evidence in support thereof; severity of punishment which conviction will entail; character, behaviour, means and standing of accused; circumstances peculiar to the accused; reasonable possibility of securing presence of accused at trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; larger interest of the public or state etc. (Prahalad Singh Bhatti v. NCT of Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280)
- Period of custody has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of circumstances and criminal antecedents of accused. (Ash Mohd. v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Bahu (2012) 9 SCC 446)
Bail Order Requisites:
- Reference to facts of the case is must. (Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-29385-2021 (P&H) Interim order dt. 28.07.2021.)
- While it is necessary to consider prima facie case, an exhaustive explanation of merits of case should be avoided. (Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129)
- A court deciding a bail application should avoid elaborate discussion on merits of a case as detailed discussion of facts at a pre-trial stage is bound to prejudice fair trial. (Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Raja Ram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559)
- Court should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence as the same is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage. (Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra@ Monu & ano. Crl. Appeal No.632 of 202 DOD 18.4.2022)
Victims Right to be Heard:
- Bail application shall be decided on merits after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the victims as well. If the victims are unable to engage the services of a private counsel, it shall be obligatory upon the Court to provide them a legal aid counsel with adequate experience in criminal law, at the States expense. (Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra@ Monu & ano. Crl. Appeal No.632 of 202 DOD 18.4.2022)
Interim Bail During Pendency of Regular Bail Application:
- A court hearing regular bail application has inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the application. (Sukhwant Singh and Ors. v. St. of Punjab (2009) 7 SCC 559; Mukesh Kishanpuria vs. St. of West Bengal (2010) 15 SCC 154)
Bail of Co-accused on the Ground of Parity:
Co-accused is entitled to bail on the footing of parity, (Girraj v. Kishanpal and others AIR 2021 SC 1484)
Regular Bail when Interim Anticipatory Granted by the High Court
No, regular bail cannot be granted, (Rukmani Mahato v. St. of Jharkhand, (2017) 15 SCC 574)
Conditions not to be Imposed while Granting Anticipatory/Regular Bail:
- Onerous conditions for grant of bail should not be imposed. (Mithun Chatterjee v. St. of Odhisha, MANU/SCROR/45128/2021)
- Compensation cannot be determined at the stage of grant of bail. However, it does not mean that no monitory condition can be imposed for grant of bail. (Dharmesh @ Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jagdishbhai @ Jagabhai Bhagubhai Ratadia v. State of Gujarat, 7 July, 2021)
Successive Bail Applications โ Forum:
- The fundamental concept is, if a Judge is available, the matter should be heard by him unless he has demitted office, or is transferred or superannuated. (Jagmohan Bahl v. St. (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 16 SCC 501)
- All successive bail applications should be entrusted/assigned to the same Judge, who earlier dealt with it. (Harjit Singh v. St. of Punjab AIR 2002 SC 281)
Conditions to Grant Regular Bail u/s 498-A IPC:
Magistrate while authorizing detention of accused shall peruse the checklist duly filled by police officer and would authorize detention only after recording his satisfaction. Failure to comply entails police officers and Judicial Magistrates for departmental action. (Arnesh Kumar vs. St. of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273)
Regular Bail when Accused is not Arrested and Cooperates Throughout Investigation:
- Bail application, in offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less, be decided w/o accused being taken in custody or by granting interim bail till application is decided;
- Bail application in offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or more than 7 years, and economic offences not covered by Special Acts, be decided on merits on appearance of accused in court;
- Bail application in offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail, be decided on merits on appearance of accused in court, complying with all the provisions of bail under the Act;
- Interim Bail may be granted taking into consideration conduct of the accused during investigation, which has not warranted arrest;
- Bail application in economic offences, not covered by Special Acts, the court should take into account seriousness of the charge and severity of punishment. (Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 773)
Dispensing with Personal Appearance of Accused till Filing of Chargesheet:
- Whenever an accused is released on bail, he need not be required to appear before the court until the chargesheet is filed and process is issued by the court. Law does not require the accused to appear before the magistrateโs court every 14 days even though he is on bail. Such practice causes considerable inconvenience to the accused. (Free Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur v. State of Bihar, (1982) 3 SCC 378)
Documents to be Endorsed while Accepting Bonds:
- Trial Courts to make appropriate endorsement on the original documents, which are accepted along with the bail bonds and sureties before returning the same to the person furnishing the surety. However, wherever it cannot be endorsed on the original document, in that situation intimation shall be forwarded to the registering authority to make endorsement in their record. Hari Chand vs. U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. CWP No.4898 of 2018 (P&H) D.O.D 25.03.2019
Execution of Bonds for Appearance before the Magistrate and Sessions Court:
It would avoid hardship to an accused if the Magistrate while releasing the accused on bail, requires execution of a bond with or without surety, as the case may be, binding the accused not only to appear as and when required before him but also to appear when called upon in the Court of Sessions. Hari Chand vs. U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. CWP No.4898 of 2018 (P&H) D.O.D 25.03.2019.
Refusal to Grant Bail Under Section 478 BNSS:
Section 478 BNSS provides for the release on bail of a person accused of a bailable offense. This Section is mandatory in nature and the court or the police has no discretion in the matter. Any accused person arrested for a bailable offence willing to provide bail must be released. The only discretion available with the police is to release the accused either on a personal bond or with sureties.
In Dharmu Naik v. Rabindranath Acharya, 1978 CRILJ 864 case, the Orissa High Court observed that even though there is no specific provision for appeal against orders refusing to grant bail under Section 436(1) CrPC (S. 478(1) BNSS), the accused can move to the high court or the court of session for bail under Section 439 of the CrPC (S. 483 BNSS). Furthermore, refusal to grant bail in violation of this section renders the detention illegal and unfair, and the police officer responsible for the detention may be charged with wrongful confinement under Section 342 of the IPC (S. 127 the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023).
In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, AIR 2012 SC 830 case, the Supreme Court of India held that the Court has exclusive power in granting or refusing bail. The grant or denial is heavily influenced by the circumstances of the case. However, the right to bail should not be refused only because of societal emotions against the accused. The primary goals of bail in a criminal proceeding are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the state of the responsibility of maintaining him awaiting trial, and to retain the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to ensure that he might submit to the courtโs jurisdiction and be present whenever required by the court.
In Amar Nath Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand, W.P.(Cr.) No. 59 of 202, Dt. 26th October, 2021 case, the Jharkhand High Court stated that if a person fails to comply with the conditions of the bail bond regarding time and place of attendance, the court may refuse to release him on bail when he appears before the court on a subsequent occasion in the same case.
Cancellation of Bail:
The settled doctrine by the Supreme Court of India is that โBail is the rule and jail is an exceptionโ but if cogent grounds are established, the courts are enshrined with powers to cancel the bail of a person.
The Lower Courts, including those of Magistrates, have the authority to cancel bail under Section 480(5) BNSS (S. 437(5) of CrPC), whereas the High Court and Court of Session have the authority under Section 483(2) BNSS (S. 439(2) CrPC).
The court needs to consider following circumstances before cancellation of bail:
- The nature of the accusation (gravity and severity of offence).
- The severity of punishment.
- Taking into consideration the position or status of the accused, i.e., whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not.
- Capacity of the accused to obstruct the due course of justice.
- Possibility of repetition of offence when on bail.
- The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
- The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence.
- Likelihood of accused to approach the victims/witnesses.
- Likelihood of accused absconding from proceedings.
- Possibility of accused to tamper with evidence.
In Ram Govind Upadhya Vs. Sudarshan Singh, 2002 Cr.L.J 1849 (SC) case, the Supreme Court held that the power of the Court under the section to cancel bail can be invoked either by the state itself or by any aggrieved party or even suo motu as held in the case of Puran vs. Ramvilas. AIR 2001 SC 2013.
In R.J Sharma Vs. R.P. Patankar, 1993 CRILJ 1550, the Bombay High Court held that Magistrate ought to pursue the application for cancellation of bail and afford an opportunity to accused to be heard.
In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1955) 1 SCC 349 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once bail has been granted, it can only be cancelled based on cogent and overwhelming circumstances. Proceedings for the cancellation of bail are not in the nature of an appeal from the grant of bail, and therefore, a court must look for circumstances that warrant cancellation of bail, such as interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice, or abuse of concession of bail granted to the accused in any manner. Bail granted to an accused with reference to bailable offence can be cancelled only if the accused
- misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity;
- interferes with the course of investigation;
- attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses;
- threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation;
- attempts to flee to another country;
- attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;
- attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.
However, a bail granted to a person accused of bailable offence cannot be cancelled on the ground that the complainant was not heard.
In Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2019 SC 3193 case, where after accused has been granted the bail, new and serious offences are added in the case. A person against whom serious offences have been added, who is already on bail can very well be directed to be arrested and committed to custody by the Court in exercise ofย power under Sections 437(5) CrPC (S. 480(5) BNSS) and 439(2) CrPC (S. 483(2) BNSS). Cancelling the bail granted to an accused and directing him to arrest and taken into custody can be one course ofย the action, which can be adopted while exercising power under Sections 437(5) and 439(2), but there may be cases where without cancelling the bail granted to an accused, on relevant consideration, Court can direct the accused to be arrested and committed to custody.
Conclusion:
A bail for bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a matter of right for the accused. Upon arrest, the police have the authority to grant bail at the police station itself, and the accused need not be produced before a magistrate for this purpose. The accused or their surety is required to execute a bail bond, ensuring their appearance in court during the trial. Bail conditions may be imposed, and the bail amount is usually predetermined or set by the police officer or magistrate. If bail is refused by the police, the accused can apply for bail before the Magistrate’s Court. Once bail is granted, the accused is released from custody until the conclusion of the trial, subject to complying with bail conditions. However, if bail conditions are violated, bail can be revoked, and the accused may be re-arrested. Overall, bail in bailable offences aims to balance the preservation of the accused’s liberty with the interests of justice.