A plea was filled by Maksud Sheikh, a labourer from Chandrapur, who was charged under section 506-ll, 450,326,452,354-A read with section 34,149,109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under section 66 E of Information Technology Act.,2000. As a result to which he was accountable for various terms of imprisonment ranging from 3-10 years. In response to the punishment awarded to him the offender filled for bail on medical grounds twice under section 389 but his urge was not accepted by Court.

Subsequently, the petitioner Maksud approached the High Court under section 436A challenging that his custody since 2014 and claimed that he has completed half of his jail term and therefore entitled for bail. However, the bench headed by Justice Chandurkar refused to accept the view and referred the question for consideration to a larger bench.

On 14th August 2020 the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ravi Deshpande and Justice Sunil Shukre answered thea question referred by the division bench led by Justice AS Chandurkar.

The bench observed that “Reading the section as a whole, we find that the benefit under the section has been intended to be given only to undertrial prisoners”. The bench further said that the above section was added in 2005 Amendment to the CrPC in an endeavour to remedy the condition of the misery of undertrials relegated to dark corners within jails.

It added that the words “during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial” and “maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence” used in section 436A are significant and they clearly indicated that only the person who has undergone detention for a period of half or more of the maximum prescribed punishment during investigation, inquiry or trial is eligible for release on bail.

The bench observed that liberal interpretation is adopted only where there are two possibilities caused by ambiguity of words, but there is no scope of interpretation when the verbatim of a particular section is clear and unambiguous.

The three-judge bench accordingly decided on the question on 28 August 2020 (Friday), holding that a convict is not entitled to the benefit of section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.                                                                       

This news has been reported by Ms. Vaishnavi Rai.