AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 268

1. State of Assam

a. Office of Public Prosecutor, Dibrugarh, suggested that the presiding officer of subordinate courts should be aware of section 440 (i) CrPC and fix the amount of bail only after considering the circumstances of the case.

b. Office of the Public Prosecutor, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, suggested that the bail application should be taken up as early as possible by the Presiding officer, and where the accused is unable to provide sureties or bonds should be subjected to verification regarding the ordinary place of residence.

c. Office of the Public Prosecutor, Morigaon, suggested that legal aid should be provided to the poor to file bail application and awareness should be created about the same.

d. Office of the Public Prosecutor, Nagaon stated that in the present situation, the public prosecutors do not find the time to go through the case diaries before the hearing of bail application and hence the Court should call the case diaries at least two days before the hearing of the bail application. It is also suggested that a separate court may be formed to deal with bail matters under sections 437, 438 and 439 Cr.P.C.

f. Office of Public Prosecutor, Tinsukia, suggested that the Investigating Officers should brief the Public Prosecutor properly.

g. Office of the Public Prosecutor, Sonitpur, suggested that the underprivileged should be given legal aid and awareness should be created about the rights to apply for bail.

h. Office of Additional Public Prosecutor, Udalguri, suggested that the Investigating Officer must send the Case Diary in time and take evidence in a responsible way as prescribed in the Cr.P.C.

i. Office of Additional Public Prosecutor, Sivsagar, suggested that the Investigating Officer must hand over a copy of the Prosecution Report along with the Case Diary prior to the fixing of the date for the hearing for bail.

j. Office of Public Prosecutor, Mangaldai, suggested that the District Legal Services Authority should render some social beneficiary duties like the duties under section 357(A) Cr.P.C.

2. Director of Prosecution, Jaipur, Rajasthan, suggested that the Investigation officer be present at the time of the hearing for the bail application as the case diary is often found with incomplete records of the investigation.

3. Director Prosecution & Litigation and Additional Secretary to Government of Punjab made a specific suggestion with regard to the offences relating to cheating/misappropriation and at the time of granting anticipatory bail, the source of money should be disclosed.

4. Director of Public Prosecutions, Bhubneshwar, Odisha, suggested that for petty offences, accused may be released on a bond with proper ID and address proof and that there should be a permanent mechanism to represent the accused persons for bail.

5. Director, Prosecution, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, suggested that the Investigating Officer should give prompt information to the Prosecution so that there is no loss of evidence during the bearing of bail application.

6. Director of Prosecution, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh made a proposition to the effect that risk of financial loss is not enough to prevent an accused from fleeing and hence the whole concept of grant of bail should be revisited.

7. Law Department, Government of Puducherry, suggested that the Court while deciding the grant of bail should consider the background of the accused and the position of the victim.

8. Directorate of Prosecution, U.T. Administration of Daman & Diu suggested that when the offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate then grant of bail should be encouraged.

9. Director of Prosecution, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, suggested that a statutory time limit be fixed for the issuance of notice and disposal of the bail application.

10. Directorate of Prosecution, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra, suggested that for anticipatory bail, a notice to the Public Prosecutor must be given, even though section 438 Cr.P.C does not provide for it. It was suggested that there should be a special online system to register the information of sureties, as it will prevent people from being sureties in multiple cases.

***



Amendments to Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Provisions relating to Bail Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys