 Good evening, everyone. And whenever Justice Kuldeep Singh, a former judge of Punjab and Hikot, comes, it always gives a pleasure because it gives and relives our memory to the effect that when we were appearing before him. We have always read the judgment of Satyendra Kumar Antil versus CBI, where in various directions had been issued and consequently this session of today, as I discussed with Justice Kuldeep Singh, he said that he will take these facets into different aspects and divide the same. And as usual, we expect that it would be as his judgments were, his grasp over the law, you all know that he immediately used to grasp any aspect and thereafter deliver the judgments. Therefore, when to understand the aspects of right of being direction which have been issued to the different authorities in consonance with sync with Article 21 of the Constitutional Media and right to speedy trial, a large number of aspects which have been dealt with this judgment, which we can say it's quite heartbreaking. And the passion of Justice Kuldeep Singh to share his knowledge can be seen that this judgment came much after he had demanded the office. But he said that this judgment as a common man also quite fascinating because there are different aspects which are required to be shared with the public at large so that the points are hammered well within everyone to understand. Without taking much time, we will request to share the knowledge and thank you for accepting our invite for sharing your knowledge. Good evening everybody. Nowadays, the problem of general public is that whenever, unluckily they are got involved in a criminal case, they have to face a trauma. They have to go through different procedures and many times they feel that the justice has not been done to them. Probably the provisions of the law has contained in the Constitutional Media and the court of criminal procedure are not followed in later and spirit by the authorities and sometime by the judges also. So here comes the judgment, Sinder Kumar Antel, where the Supreme Court has taken the lead in threshing all the aspects of the arrest, the rent of bail, right of spirit trial and giving direction to the various authorities that is the police and the judiciary to follow it. So we can divide this into six aspects. First is the prevailing situation in the jails. Second is the arrest, third is bail. Fourth is the right of spirit trial, then the directions and then the last but not the least is the implementation aspect of this judgment. As we know, the jails in India are flooded with under trial prisoners. It is indicated that more than two-thirds of the inmates of the prison constitute under trial prisoners of this category of prisoners. Majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offense being charged with offenses initial for seven years or less. They are not only poor but illiterate but would also include the woman. For them there is a for whom there is a special prison in the CRPC grant of bail. The Supreme Court has asserted that it exhibits the mindset vestige of colonial India on the part of the investigating agency, not withstanding the fact that arrest is a decronion measure resulting in a containment of liberty and thus to be used sparingly. In democracy there can never be an impression that it is a police state as both are conceptually opposite to each other. So considering that two-thirds of the under trial inmates are the under trials, one is to go through the definition of trial. In CRPC, the definition of trial is nowhere given but the effects are observed that for the purpose of bail an extended meaning has to be given to include the stage of investigation also. Now the arrest is to be made under section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not that once a case is registered, a person is to be automatically registered. There are certain provisions which have to be followed and are luckily which are not being followed. So the apex court reproduced section 41 of the CRPC in the judgment. It says section 41 says that when any police officer may without any order from the magistrate and without a grant rest any person who has committed a cognitive offense or a way to whom there is a credible information or reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed the cognitive offense. Initially with the term which may be less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years. If the following conditions are satisfied that means for arrest the conditions if the sentence is up to 7 years the following condition have to be satisfied. The police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint information or suspicion that such person has committed the set offense that is his satisfaction. The police officer is satisfied that the arrest is necessary. It is not that in every case arrest is committed. Other is to prevent such person from quitting any further offense or it is for the proper investigation of the offense. Then to prevent the person from causing the evidence of the offense to disappear or tampering with such evidence or prevent such person from making any inducement factor or promise to the person of penalty with the effects of the case or dissuading him from opposing in the court. Unless such person is arrested his friends in the court whenever the is required cannot be ensured. That means the the officer field that is friends in the court cannot be ensured so he can arrest them. Then the section says the police officials are record while making such arrest is reason in writing. That means if the events is sentences up to 7 years and the arrest is to be made and the police officer has to record his reason that one of the above noted classes are satisfied. In the case where the sentence is more than 7 years up to goes up to death sentence the police officer can arrest a person if he is a complaint offender. There is a credible evidence against him. Then he is in possession of stolen property or obstructed the police official while executing the duty or he is deserted from the army and so and so. It says if no person concerned in non-conference or against whom a complaint has been made or credible information has been made see the reasons which have in some shall be arrested except under the front of the magistrate. So in case the sentence is more than 7 year person can be arrested and if the police official decide not to arrest he has to record the reason that the arrest is not necessary. So even for the serious offenses he has to see whether the requirements of the section 41 are met. Only then the arrest is to be made. It is not that in every case arrest is to be made. Then there is section 41A that is a notice of appearance for the police officer whenever a case is registered. The police officer will issue a notice to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received etc. to appear before he met such person. Then such person is required to appear at the said time and place mention the notice. If such person complies and continue to comply the notice he shall not be arrested. Section 41A says if the person continue to comply with the notice he shall not be arrested in respect of the offense referred to in the notice unless for reason to be recorded the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. Further where such person at any time fail to comply with the term of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself. The police officer may subject to such order as may have been passed by a competent court in the arrest. So all the rest have to be made in accordance with section 41 and 41A. No, in case of courts the procedure is contained in section 87 and 88. The examinee of the section showed that in the initial the court is not to jump to issue the rents at the first date. Court is to issue someone at the first instance and if the person doesn't appear or is avoiding only then the bailer runs and if he fail to comply the bailer runs only then the non-rains are to be issued. And then when a person appears rather on a summons of rents the bonds are to be taken for his appearance. The Supreme Court has also observed that there are sufficient safeguards in the CRPC itself which are unluckily ignored many times. Supreme Court referred to section 167-2 of the court of criminal procedure which says that when a person is arrested he has to be forwarded to the ministry within 24 hours having the jurisdiction. The ministry can authorize the detention of a person for a maximum period of 15 days but such a detention cannot exceed 90 days in case the punishment is 10 years or more extending up to life or death and 60 days in other cases in case the sentence is less than 10 years. So the overall period of detention cannot exceed 60 days or 90 days after that if the police report is not presented the person has to be released on bail. For the purpose of authorizing the detention for the first time the person has to be produced in custody before the court and for the judicial custody he can be produced through medium of electronic video linkage. So that is it. Then there is another section which is commonly misinterpreted that is section 170 of the court. It says if you upon an investigation under this chapter it appears to the history in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as a foresets such person shall forward the undercut study what is undercut study to the magistrate. Empower to take cognance of the offense upon a police report and to try the accused or commit to the committee infertile or is the offense is available and the accused is able to give security shall take security from him for his appearance for such magistrate on a day fixed for his attendance. So the word custody there has been I will come subsequently come to judgment custody doesn't mean that it must be in the police custody or in judicial custody custody has been liberally interpreted to denote the presence of the person is physical parents not actually in police or judicial custody. So then there are section 2004 and 2009 where the process has to be issued then there is another important section which has been largely ignored by the courts that is to prevent the unnecessary custody or detention of the accused that is section 309 that is a power to postpone or generally proceedings. I will read out that section what it actually says that is also incorporated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in every inquiry or trial the proceeding shall continue from day to day unless all the witnesses in attendance have been examined unless the court find the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to since for the reason to be recorded that means day to day trial is the rule and the government is exceptional whereas now what we say that the government has become a rule and day to day trial is an exception. The section further talks about section 376 A, A, B, B, 370, C, D, B, and where the trial has to be completed within two months from the date of fighting of the charge. This section further says that if after taking cohesive and circumcised trial the court find it advisable or necessary to postpone the commencement of the or adjournment in the inquiry or trial from time to time for reason to be recorded postpone or adjournment the same on such termed thing fit as it considered necessary and may by a front remand the accused in custody then there is a bar that the magistrate cannot remand the accused in custody for a term exceeding 15 days. The section further says that when the witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment and postpone shall be granted without examining them except for special reason to be recorded. It further provides that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show us again the sentence proposed to be imposed upon him. I had observed during my service that in the many courts particularly in Haryana there is a tendency that while pronouncing judgment the person is convicted he is taken into custody and the adjournment of one week or 10 days is granted for hearing on the sentence that is against the you know the section 309. No adjournment is to be granted for showing the sentence proposed to be imposed upon him. So that need to be court needs to be sanitized about this section. During my service I had a positive judgment giving various direction to the courts incorporated in section 309. I hope these are being followed by the courts. Then we'll see that the even after conviction the man is not to be arrested. He has to be granted bail. Then there is section 389 where the sentence is up to three years and the conviction is on the magistrate. The accused is ready to positively find the magistrate has to release him on bail to enable him to file the appeal. Of course the appellate court for reason to be caught writing suspend the sentence even after conviction. The session court and the high court can excite these powers in case where the sentence is the sentence is stated that death or impregnable life or sentence of not present 10 years the opportunity has to be given to the public prosecutor for showing cause against the release. So we have to see that even after the conviction the chances that in the minor cases where the sentence is minor he has to be released by the trial court itself where the sentence serious the sentence is to be suspended. Can be suspended by the session court or the high court. Now we have to notice that presumption of innocence is attached with the accused. It is widely recognized under the universal declaration of rights article 11 and then article 14 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. In Arnesh Kumar versus state of Bihar in 2014 the scope of section 40 and 41 and 41A was examined by the Supreme Court. In Arnesh Kumar's case the Supreme Court had found out that arrest is not to be made state of A. The arresting officer has to put a question to himself why arrest, why it is really required, what purpose it will serve, what object it will achieve. So in that case the Supreme Court had observed that it is also incorporated in the Sindh Rekumar judgment that our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that the police officer do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and the magistrate do not authorize the detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have heard about we are giving the following corrections. In Arnesh Kumar's case certain corrections are given. All the state governments to instruct the police officer not to automatically arrest when a case under section 49A IPC is arrested but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down about flowing from section 41C RPC. All the police officers to be provided with a checklist containing specified subclasses under section 41B subclass 2. So the checklist is there, the direction was there, the checklist is there they are to see that whether the accused before arresting whether he meets the parameters laid down in section 41 and he has to record the reasons. The checklist has to be duly filled and furnish the reason and material which necessitated the arrest while forwarding the accused before registered for further detention. Then it was the requirement that the checklist should be there and it is filled in a prior to the magistrate. Then further duty was imposed on the magistrate under in the said judgment. The magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall reuse the report furnished by the police officer in term of foresets and only after recording its extraction the magistrate will authorize the detention. So the magistrate is not to mechanically authorize the detention of the accused in either in the police custody or the judicial custody. He is to see the grounds mentioned in the checklist whether the arrest was necessary or not. So the decision not to arrest the accused has to be forwarded to the magistrate within two weeks from the date of institution of the case with a copy to the magistrate which may be extended by the SP of the district for reason to be recorded. Then it further says that in case of notice under section 41A it to be started for a period within two weeks from the date of institution of the case it can be extended by the superintendent of the police. The court gave very strict instructions in the case that failure to comply with the direction of foreshad shall apart from rendering the police officer concerned liable for department direction they shall also be liable to be punished by the contempt of court to be instituted before the high court having territorial jurisdiction. That was against the police officers and against the judicial visas it says authorizing the detention without recording reason of foreshad by judicial magistrate concerned shall be liable for department election by the appropriate high court. Then further that this direction doesn't apply in section cases under section 498A or section 4 of the Dori Provision Act but also such cases where the offense is initial with a term which may be less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years with or without fine. So these directions were issued way back in the year 2014 in a nationwide case by the Supreme Court and in case of failure to comply with the direction the action is to be taken against the police officer and the ministry. Then we have to examine that to the the non-rave ones are not to be issued in routine section that there are section 53 in under the CRPC in the first and sound court if you see someone or where once or if you see the accused is not arrested or he's avoiding or certain the only credit can issue non-rave ones also same procedure is to be followed in the complaint cases by both the courts. Then the Supreme Court also discussed another celebrated case of Siddharth v. State of UP which admitted it is 2021, one SCC 676. It talks of section 170. It says in case where the prosecution doesn't require the study of the accused there is no need for an arrest when the case is sent to the magistrate under section 170 of the court. There is not even a need for filing the bail application as the accused is merely forward to the court for the purpose of framing of charge and for issues of process for trial. If the court is of the view that there is no need for any remark then the court can fall back upon section 88 of the court and complete the formalities required to secure his presence for the commencement of the trial. Of course there can be situation where a demand may be required. It is only in such cases that the accused will be hard and in such a situation an opportunity will have to be given to the accused person if the court is of frame of sight view that the demand would be required. So the court made clear that it is not applicable to the person of use who are already in custody for which the bail application has to be decided on merits. So many times it happens that the police completes the investigation and present the client doesn't arrest the accused. So there it says even the bail application is not required. The purpose of the bail is merely to secure the presence of the accused before the court. It is not to punish him. He is not to be kept in custody as a punishment. I will discuss it in the later part. In High Court of Delhi versus CBI, the court discussed that what custody appearing in this section does not contemplate that in Section 170, Section 170 CRPC doesn't complain either the police or the judicial custody. It merely connotes the presence of the accused by investigating Vicer before the court at the time of filing the charges where after the role of the court starts had it not been so, the investigator Vicer would not have been vested with the powers to release a person on bail in a bailor fence after finding that there was sufficient evidence to put the accused on trial and it would have been obligatory upon him to produce such accused in custody before the magistrate for being released on bail by the court. So in case of High Court of Delhi versus CBI, it was held that it is not simply that accused should be producing custody in all the cases. In this case, it was also observed that in normal and ordinary court, the police should always avoid arresting a person and sending him to jail. If it is possible for the police to complete the investigation without his arrest and if every kind of cooperation is provided by the accused to investigate to the investigator Vicer in completing the investigation, it is only in case of utmost necessity where investigation cannot be completed without arresting the person for a person who may be required for recovery of inquiry articles, weapon offence, eliciting some information or clue regarding his accomplice that is the rest may be required. But ordinarily it is not that the person is to state way arrested. So the High Court, this being court has observed in said case that it is not essential that in every case the involving cognisable and non-vehler cases that the accused has to be taken to custody when the charged or final report is filed. Then there are very important observations made by the Supreme Court in this case. It says that usually what we have noticed that the trend is that the person is released on bail on fencing personal vulnerability of some amount say in few thousand to facts. So this Supreme Court examined this suspect whether that monetary loss is sufficient to prevent the accused from fleeing from justice. It observed that it is high time that our parliament realizes that the risk of monetary loss is not the only deterrent against fleeing from justice. But there are other factors which act as equal deterrence against fleeing. So except the monetary loss there are other facts which probably escape the notice of our law makers that will also prevent that is such as family ties person may be well settled in the family. So it is not possible to abandon your family and run away. Roots in the community, job security, membership of stable organization. These are some of the facts which have to be considered as a deterrent against the accused from fleeing from justice. The court observed that the length of his residence in the community his employment status, history and his financial condition, his family ties and relationship, his reputation, character and monetary condition. His prior criminal record including any record of prior leads on cognizable offenses or bail. The identity of the responsible member of the community who would vouch for his reliability, the nature of the offense charged and apparent probability of conviction and likely sentence which may be passed against him are the relevant facts to be considered to seek the risk to examine the risk of non-appearance. Again the purpose of the bail is only to ensure the prints of the accused during trial and not to punish him. The court is to see whether these after considering the facts there is a risk that the accused will not appear before the court. Of course, if the court is satisfied on these grounds, the accused has to be released on bail. Then there can be circumstances of a major risk where the man is of notorious character, confirmed criminal. Court may insist on bail and shorties. Of course, where the person is hard on criminal land, the court is satisfied that he is likely to flee from justice. Considering the seriousness of the offense, then of course the court can record the reason and decline to a reasonable. Now I will come to the bail aspect as examined by the Supreme Court after considering and examining various sections. There is a little notice section 436A of the court which considered the maximum period under which a trial can be kept in custody. It says where a person has during the period of investigation in quarry or trial under the code of an offense under any law, not being an offense initially with the death, undergoes detention for a period extending up to one half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offense under the law. He shall be released on by the court on his personal bond with the authorities. Of course, there can be ground where after hearing the public prosecutor and according reason, the detention can be continued for a period longer than one half. But there is a further writer that such a tension cannot exceed the maximum period of imprisonment provided for that offense under the law. We have noticed that many times the people have undergone the imprisonment which is more than the punishment provided for defense. So far that section 436A is very useful. So the under trial cannot be kept in custody for indefinitely. Then we daily examine the region regarding the bail section 437. We'll see that the tendency is that unless it is absolutely incestuous, the person should be released on bail. It says when any person accused or suspected of commission of any non-bail offences arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of the police station or appears or is brought before the court other than the high court or court of session, that means the court of registered, he may be released on bail but the rule is he may be released on bail but such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable ground for believing that he has been guilty of offense punishment with the death or imprisonment for life. The person shall not be released if such offense is a cognitive offense and he has been previously convicted of the offense punishment with the death imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of cognitive offense punishment with the imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years. So unless these grounds are there the the magistrate has to release that man on bail. Further it says that if in the said class one and two the person is under the age of 16 year woman or sick person sick or informed person so that he has also to be released on bail. Of course the bail can be declined for the special reasons. It further says that the real fact that the accused person may be required for being a ratified witnesses during investigations shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant the bail if he is otherwise entitled. Provided also that no person if the offense allows to acquit him is previously the death imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more may be released on bail by the court under the section without giving any opportunity of hearing to the public prosecutor. Then there is a subsection two that if the further investigation is to be conducted the man has to be released on bail. Then subsection three says that when a person acquittal of suspected of commission of an offense initial with the imprisonment which may extend to seven years that is second category comes to extend to seven years or more. Then certain conditions has to be imposed that he will not deadly indebted induce given in with that to the witness he will not commit to the similar offense or temper with the evidence. Then the power is also there with the court granting the bail to cancel the same. The power of bail are also vested in the high court and court of session under section 439 CRPC. Everybody is well aware of that that before I will skip that the then the sometime what happened that the court granting the bail impose a condition demanding a bond which is excessive. Then under section 440 this can be the amount of bail bond can be reduced. The Supreme Court in this case categorize the offenses for the purpose of bail. So it will make convenient for the courts to consider the grant of bail. The first category is A category A where the offenses is the imprisonment of seven years or less doesn't fall in other category B and B. Then category B is the more serious cases where the sentence is more than seven years or life or death. Then category C are the special act containing stringent reason for bail like NDPS, PMLA, UAPA and companies. Then the D category are the economic offenses not covered by the special act. So the honorable Supreme Court has discussed the category wise in the category A or sometimes are to be issued of course regarding the bail I've discussed above. The normal is that the bail is to be granted unless there are special reason for declining the same. And the grants are not to be issued at the first instance, first the someone then bail once, then not once. And if he appears then his bonds can be taken for appearance. For the purpose of category B and D that is where the sentence is more than seven years and the economic offenses, these are to be decided on merits depending upon the facts of each case. This is for the courts to see. Then comes the very category C where there are special enactment like NDPS act, PMLA, companies act, UAPA or UAPA, POSCO act, etc. Where there are stringent provisions for grant of bail which makes the bail virtually impossible. Under the NDPS action 37 it says without hearing the classic reason can't be granted. And second is that the court is satisfied that he is not guilty of the offense and he will not commit the offense. So this certificate is not possibly given by the court. So it makes the bail difficult. So the object of grant of bail was discussed in the Chandra v. CVI in 2012, one SCC bail party. It says the object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventive. The deprivation of liberty must be considered as a punishment unless it is required to ensure that a accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The court owe more than verbal respect to the principle of punishment that the principle of punishment begins after the conviction and every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. So the principle of grant of bail was laid down in the old one, the boxing CBS case for the state of Punjab, that is in 1980 when the bail, it was held that the bail is the right and jail is exception. Unluckily it has become otherwise now. So in light of this trend which is going on today, it was necessary for the sondables to record India to pass this judgment and issue the directions. So the apex court in this case has also considered the right of spirit trial considering the arrest, grant of bail, etc. The Supreme Court has observed that the right of spirit trial is a part of the article 21 of the Constitution as interpreted in the Merika Gandhi's case way back in 1978. The procedure to deny the personal body has to be reasonable fair and just. So section 309 I have already discussed, it is there that the trial has to be held on day to day basis for that the courts can prepare a calendar calling for a sufficient number of witnesses on day one and then some other witnesses on day two, day three and so on and complete a round of hearing covering all the witnesses and if some of the witnesses do not appear or are not examined, then in the second round the same procedure can be followed of fixing the case for day one, two and three. Now it may be opposed by the some members of the bar, but they have to be convinced that it is the only way of spirit trial. I have been implementing it during my service and I have found that even the session cases are fully tried and cited in less than one year and some cases where the witnesses appear on the first or second date are decided within three months also, where the conviction was recorded. So starting from three months anytime between one year is a sufficient time for the CGN on the session trial, for the magistrate trial the period can be less as the number of witnesses is also less. So considering all these services, the Supreme Court has also cited the judgment of Hussain and other universities of India where the judicial visas were reminded that the judicial services as well as legal services are not like any other services. They are the missions for serving this society. The mission is achieved, is not achieved if the litigants who is waiting in queue does not get the turn for a long time. Then in that case the action plan was order to be prepared and the directions were issued that the bail application should be disposed of within one week. The magistrate trial should conclude within two weeks and all the case pending for five years should be cited by the year end and in case of bail applications filed for the High Court, these are so far as possible we decided within one month and currently we decided where they choose in the study for more than five years are concluded at the earliest. Luckily despite these directions there is some still some delay in the decision on the bail applications and the trials. So probably the need arose for the Supreme Court to detail and discuss everything in detail again to impress upon the various courts from bottom to the top for a speedy trial. You know in Kashmira Singh's case or state of Punjab where the accused is in custody certain directions were issued to release the accused on bail. So the rationale of this practice to keep the accused in custody can have no application where the court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years. It would indeed be a diversity of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offense which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him. Can the court ever compensate him for the incarceration which is found to be unjustified? Would it be just at all for the court to tell a person we have admitted to Europe because we think we have premopsized case but unfortunately we have no time to hear your appeal for quite a few years and therefore until we hear your appeal we must remain in jail even though you may be innocent. So that will shake the faith of the public in the judicial system. So if the appeal is admitted and the court is unable to hear the case, the accused has certain rights of grant of bail. The Supreme Court also took note of the Rampal's case wherein the High Court of Punjab had paid on certain principle for a grant of bail of under trials where it was laid down that where an convict has undergone at least five years of imprisonment out of which at least three years after conviction he should be released on bail pending the hear of the appeal for identity file the application. In case of woman it was four years and two years. So now comes the most important, these are the categories C where by under the special enactments the grant of bail has been made impossible. Under section 37 of the NDP said everything has been made cognisable and non-bailable. The Fx court laid down that where the offense is punished for a term of five years or more he shall be released on bail unless unless the public prosecutor had an opportunity to oppose the bail or if opposed the court is satisfied that there is no going out leaving that he's not guilty of defense. So under section 37 the bail in case sentence is more than five years the sentence is the bail is virtually made impossible. Now can the courts do that on the one hand the court cannot grant the bail and on the other hand it delay the trial of the cases. The Supreme Court has similarly interpreted section 20 of the Tata Act in Kartar Singh versus state of Punjab where similar provisions were there. So therefore the directions were issued in such cases under the special acts that where the sentence is up to five years if he has undergone half of the sentence he shall be released on bail and if there is a fine the amount of bail shall be 50% of set amount. If the sentence is more than five years the if he has already undergone half of the sentence and the bail amount shall in no case shall be less than 50 of the two shorties and in case the sentence is 10 years with a minimum fine of 1 lakh he shall be released on bail if he has been jailed for not less than five years and furnished bail of rupees 1 lakh with two shorties of the like amount. So even in case under the NDP set there he has undergone half of the sentence the bail has been made possible by the apex court. Of course in these cases the accused is required to appear before the concerned police station in case of less than five years once in a month in more than five years once in a court night and in case of 10 years or more once in a week. So in case of a foreigner the court has also considered it and say that their passport can be impounded and the certificate of assurance should be sought from the embassy that he will not leave the country and appear for the court. The court has also made it possible that in case of bail the amount can be deposited in cash also. Of course the economic offenses have to be decided on its own merits. Now I will come to the summary of that what are the directions I will only read out the important directions. The most important direction given by the court in this case is that the government of India may consider of introducing a special enactment in the nature of bail act to streamline the grant of bail so that the different court do not apply different yardsticks. The further direction is that the investigation itself comply with the mandate of section 41 and 41A of the CRPC as given in a Resh Kumar's case which we have discussed and they should in case of non-compliance the action has to be taken against the officer or the judicial officers then it requires that the standing order has to be issued as issued in the Delhi police to comply with the mandate of section 41 which contain the list of requirements of section 41 whether these are fulfilled or not as we have discussed above. Further say that there is no need for insistent bail application while considering the application of section 88 172,004 and 2009. So then it says there is a need for strict compliance of judgment of Siddharth case as we have discussed above. Then direction for constitutional special courts then finding out where the accused are not able to comply with the bail conditions then action has to be taken in section 440 then the compliance has to be made of mandate of section 436A where the accused has to be released if he has undergone the certain part of the maximum sentence if he is in custody during trial. It also says that the bail application out to be disposed of within two weeks except if the prison mandate otherwise with the exception being an intervening application the application of anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks that is necessary considering that there is a delay in disposal of the bail application regular bail application and the anticipatory bail application and there is a lot of resentment in the public and in the bar. Now last but not the least is the implementation part so question is the judgment is there how to implement it. We know that India is a vast country almost in every state there is a high court then there are so many district courts and the courts of a magistrate or munsif. So it is not possible that the judgment will come to the notice of everybody immediately. There is a need to strengthen the district judiciary and bring this judgment to the notice of the district judiciary and sanitize the magistrates and the district judges about the directions contained in this judgment so that these can be implemented in letter and spirit. Of course the high courts before the high court the judgment can be cited by the liars the judgment can be circulated among the judges so that it comes to notice of all the judges. There are sometimes seminars seminars can be held there are judicial academies where the judgment can be brought to the notice of all the judges at all the levels so that the people give a sigh of relief so far as the arrest bail is gone. I'm sure that if the bail is this judgment is implemented in letter and spirit there will be greater relief to the general public to the bar and it will improve over an image before the word community that we are truly a democratic country where unnecessary tension is not made. So thank you very much for patiently listening me and cooperating. Thank you very much. Thank you sir. So nicely summed up the entire thing and we all know that you are so well versed with Punjabi just for the sake that the audience who's watching from Punjab if you have to summarize all this direction which have been how do you like to sum it up in Punjabi what were the directions given issued and what is the crux of this judgment. The crux of the judgment is that bail is the rule jail exception that is very old rule which is of course conveniently forgotten by everybody is forgotten it so whenever the person is in he's in custody so so yeah you know on the which ordinarily But luckily, as you can see, this is the case. Jinnah Chikki is coming to the High Court. That means the district has also filed a bail and dismissed her. So the results are that all the people who are travelling, those who are going to the jail, those who have to go through the trial, they have already been punished. There are many cases where the district has already been undercounted. So that concept has been made. It is very wrong. Look, there is a 15th trial. He may be guilty, he may not be guilty. So the decision has been made. So we cannot punish a person before the trial. So we cannot punish a person before the trial. So we cannot punish a person before the trial. So we cannot punish a person before the trial. So we cannot punish a person before the trial. The bail should be ruled and the jail should be exception. Then there is a direction. Arneesh Kumar's case, Darjeet's case, the magistrate who gave the direction, he made a decision. He said that the bail application is pending in the lower courts. So the person who is studying and is going to the data page, so that I don't know what is the reason why he is not decided. Anticipatory bail is pending. There is a complaint in the high court that the bail application was filed against him. It was noticed that he was not decided for 6 months. The person who was arrested was not there. He was illegally hidden. The police did not catch him. So it is necessary that the bail application, the regular bail application, the participatory bail application, should be decided in a time bound manner. This way and that way, the person will not be able to bail. So this is what I gave. First I gave the judgment, then I retweeted the case, the Arneesh Kumar's case. And the complaint of section 41, the Supreme Court said that you should make a checklist. Section 41, the rest is important. The person who is going to the data page, the person who was arrested and asked for bail, I do not know, there are many ladies who are doing the interrogation, who are asking for bail, who are doing the arrest, who are doing the arrest. Even in the complaint case, I have seen that there is a complaint case. Accused innocently. The person who was arrested and the bail application was not there. So that is not the requirement. Someone has been arrested. You have to ensure that if there is a trial in the present, then there is a bare-bound jail. It is not a big thing. Probably I feel that if the officer says that he will do something, I think that it is a self-created fear. I do all sorts of things. I never got any problem after doing my judicial order. I passed the judicial order, I passed it. I mentioned the section 41 of the requirement. I am doing the bail, there is no problem. I have made a lot of notes, I have been doing coffee pastries these days. Judgment is being implemented. There will be a large amount of under trials. There will be a lot of relief. There will be relief in the jail. I am talking about the absence of the court. The case is pending. You have to make a quick decision. It will not happen that the file will not be decided in the lifetime. They will take different steps to take the judicial in consultation with the other authorities that they want to do a speed trial. They have to decide themselves. So this is the case. There is no requirement for the bail application to be a court. You can pass the order You can pass the order. In the case of fear, you have to always be content. I'm not saying anything that nothing is going to happen. You have to be content to be in the court. You have to be in the court. I am not saying anything that nothing is going to happen. I am saying something No one is saying anything, just sit down, get scared, sit on the chair and do what you want to do. So the high court has never said anything to the right officer. There is no problem with who is the thief or the thief. But I think that if all the judgments are implemented, especially because of the district judiciary, such as pending, uncessory bail application, the district court is going, the high court is going, it is going to be closed. There will be a big decrease in the court. So the high court and the supreme court will decide the bail application for a long time. They will not be able to take up the main case. There are unnecessary matters. Whether it is the magistrate level or the district level, they will not be able to go to the high court or the supreme court. So this is the crux of the judgment. Vikas, Vikas, are you still there? Yes, sir. Somehow somebody called him. Yes, sir. So it has been nicely summed up. I feel that those who are from Punjab and those who know Punjabi will also understand how the crux has been taken. And thank you, everyone. Stay safe, stay blessed. And we are again once again thankful to Justice Guldip Singh for sparing his time on a day where there is so much of rain and he has just rained with his knowledge, which everybody will cherish. The entire crux has been explained so beautifully that people will understand the judgment and such a good man. Vikas, I can see on the screen my old class fellow and old friend, Mr. Sunny. So I can recognize him after a long time. So he was my class fellow as a little old friend. So I've seen him after a long time with gray hairs and gray moustaches. So I hope I will see you physically one day. I'm here today. That is a gift from nature on a rainy day to see an old friend. So nice.