S. 437A has been inserted in the Cr. P.C. by amendment act, 2008 (Act No 5 of 2009). It runs as under:
"437A. (1) Before conclusion of the trial and before disposal of the appeal, the Court trying the offence or the Appellate Court, as the case may be, shall require the accused to execute bail bonds with sureties, to appear before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective Court and such bail bonds shall be in force for six months.
(2) If such accused fails to appear, the bond stand forfeited and the procedure under section 446 shall apply.''
The commencement clause of the amendment Act says:
“It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint; and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act”
What is the date enforcement of s. 437 A?
2. Whether this section is applicable in cases of convictions also ? i.e. whether a convict has got right to bail for 6 months after the judgment ?
Dear Dr.Tripathi, I am of the view that Secrion 437 A, says before conclusion of the trial and before disposal of the appeal, the court trying the offence or the applellate court : means the trial court trying the offence or the appellate Court hearing the appeal against conviction or acquital, as such it should also include convicted prisoners. If the Legislature intend that Section 437.A would apply only to acquital it could have inserted the expression "before the disposal of the appeal against acquital" but it simply says before disposal of the appeal and that means appeal against conviction or acquital, as such it covers the convicted prisoners; that ia how I interprete that section 437.A. Regarding the enforcement it has come into effect on 31st december 2009, as per the Ministry of Home affairs Notification, New Delhi, the 30th december 2009. S.O.3313 (E)- In exercise of power conferred by sub section (2) of section 1 of the criminal procedure code (Amendment) Act 2008 (5 of 2009) the central government hereby appoints the 31st December 2009 as the date on which the provisions of the said Act except section 5, section 6 and Clause (b) of section 21 shall come into force.[F.No.1/1/2007-Jud-Cell.Vol-VI]. S.C Srivastava Jt.Secy.
Dear Sir.Dr.Tripathi, I dont know about that, but in our State it is not. And one thing I am sure of it, and that is that, you know what you are asking, but you are posting this query for some special reasons or to test the members of LCI, and we would be very grateful about your finding to this provisions, as even me right from day one this section 437-A CrPc was agitating my mind.
It is not a test question. Rather it is real problem, but perhaps, unnoticed by the lawyers on criminal side. I discussed this provision with many lawyers exclusively practicing on criminal side as well as with Government Advocates (Public Prosecutors) in the High Court , but they were not even aware of this provision.
An undertrial accused (ex army officer) had sought my advice on this provision last month. However, at that time I was out of satation and could not post the issue on this forum. Today, I received a phone call from another person who wants bail under s. 437A.
I am confused, even though words of s. 437A are clear. Let us go through report of Law Commission and aims and object behind this provision.
S. 437A speaks about notice to accused by higher court. Nessecity of notice will arise only when appeal is preferred by the prosecution. When accused is filing appeal, there will be no occasion of notice to him.Thus, s. 437A does not confer a right to bail to a convict.
(The intention of legislature assimilates two aspects; one aspect carries the concept of ‘meaning’, i.e., what the word means and another aspect conveys the concept of ‘purpose’ and ‘object’ or the ‘reason’ or ‘spirit’ pervading through the statute. The process of construction, therefore, combines both the literal and purposive approaches.)
Dear Sir.Dr.Tripathi, sorry i am late as i was travelling, in interpretation I always prefer the Golden Rule of interpretations, and that section 437-A, if interpreted literally it is very clear that Bail shall be granted by the Court by executing bail bond to appear before the Higher Court when notice is issued to him,that is the intention of the Legistlatures. Now, another aspecsts of this provisions is that if the accuaed is acquited then question of bail does not arise, so it will include convicted prisoners, who has to be granted bail by executing bail bond after convictions. Here the expression " the court trying the offence or the appellate court" is very significant, and this has made bails very liberal to the accused and in the long run it may not be good as there will be no one in jail, that is if we give literal meaning to the provisions.
Object and reasons - Notes on clauses reads as under:
"Clause 40 inserts a new section 437A to provide for the Court to require accused to execute bail bonds with sureties to appear before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of an appeal against the judgment of the respective Court."
It appears that s. 437A addresses an appeal other than one filed by the accused.