In case, Satendra kumar antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation, the apex court observed the need of separate enactment of bail to smooth the procedure of granting bail.

The apex court recommended Central government to enact separate legislation over bail for streamline functioning of bail system in India.

The bench consists of Justice Sanjay Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh made this observation. They referred to United Kingdom Bail legislation which is comprehensive law over the law of bail and cover various aspects of bail like grant of bail prior or after conviction, condition of prison filled with under trial prisoners, issuance of warrant by court, power of court as well as power of investigation agency described in the legislation, action on violation of condition on which bail granted, execution of bail bonds and securities, exception for certain circumstances also provided in the legislation. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is imbibed in the legislation.

The bench said that after post independence we still following the legislation enacted preindependence with some modifications according to need of the society. Now there is need to enact new legislation for smooth functioning of bail part of the code. With this court gave few directions which are as follow:

• Union should consider the need of new Bail act for streamline functioning of bail system.
• The investigation agency and police is bound to follow direction given under Arnesh kumar Judgment and mandatory section 41 and 41A of code.
• The court has to see that the conditions provided under section 41 and 41A of code is complied by the investigation agency and police. Any non compliance on part of investigation agency and police entitle the accused for bail.
• All States government and UT issue standing order for facilitating compilation of section 41 and section 41A of code and also keep in mind the order of High court passed on 7.02.18 in writ and standing order issued by Delhi police.
• During application of section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of CRPC there is no insisting over application of bail.
• The court said in Judgment of Siddharth case that there is no need to arrest each and every accused at the point of time of filing of chargesheet.
• The governments also comply with the mandatory directions passed by the court time to time and Endeavour to fulfill the vacancies in special court of officer expeditiously.
• The High courts see the under trial prisoners in the prison to uncomply with the condition of bail and under section 440 of code facilitate their releases from jail.
• While taking securities the court keep in mind the mandatory requirements of section 440 of code.
• All direction mandatorily complied at district and high court level while keeping in mind the mandate of section 436A as said by the court in Bhim Singh case.
• All bail application should be decided in 2 weeks except if the section provide otherwise with the exception of intervening application. In case of anticipatory application, 6 weeks can be taken with the exception of intervening application.
• The court directed to State governments, UT and High courts to submit status report or affidavit within 4 months.