SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Miscellaneous Application No.2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl) No.5191/2021 SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL Petitioner(s) VERSUS 25144921 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. Respondent(s) [TO BE TAKEN UP AT THE 2 P.M. ] Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv./AC, Mr. D.L Chidananda (AC) Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate for high court of karnataka; Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Advocate for high court of jharkhand; Mr. P.I. Jose, Advocate for gauhati high court; Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate for high court of madhya pradesh; Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate for high court of delhi; Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Advocate for high court of of meghalaya; Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Advocate for high court Orissa, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate for State of Arunachal Prade AOR Ms. Divya Jain, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, AOR Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. James P. Thomas, Ad , Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Makan, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Ms. Pragya Bhagel, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, AOR Mr. Umesh Kumar Ranjan, Adv. Mr. A. Sai Kumar, Adv. 3 7 Mr. Yashvardhan, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Aman Panwar, Adv. Mr. Abhin deep Roy, AOR Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, AOR Mr. Rao Raj Bahadur Singh, Adv. Mr. R. Murugaiyan, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR 8 Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Aman Gautam, Adv. Ms. Anika Bansal, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER We have heard the learned Amicus and the learned Additional Solicitor General. It is agreed that the SOP with respect to the formation of the Empowered Committee and the SOP with respect to Under Trial Prisoners as extracted by this Court in order dated 13.02.2024 may be modified: "Point (iii) in the "Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedure for implementation of the Scheme for support to poor prisoners" may be modified as under: iii) An 'Empowered Committee' may be constituted in each District of the State/UT, comprising of i) District Collector (DC)/District Magistrate (DM)'s ii) Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, iii) Superintendent of Police, Superintendent/Dy. Superintendent of iv) the concerned Prison and v) Judge Incharge of the E Jail Athd ben Sty Dt daputia OVL/ PINtOtor M od fnat sout to bu ti 5 do Emp vo rmail Furd Tded tee 9 concerned Prison, as nominee of the District Judge. Incharge of the meetings of the EC*." Similarly, the Standard Operating Procedure for Under Trial Prisoners may be modified as under: "1) If the UTP is not released from jail within a period of 7 days of order of grant of bail, then the jail authority should inform the Secretary, DLSA 2) Upon receiving information, the Secretary, DLSA must immediately arrange for an interaction with the UTP. The Secretary, DLSA will authorise a JVL/PLV to interact with the UTP and to verify if the UTP has funds in his Prisoner's Savings Account. If not, based on information obtained from the UTP in the format prescribed (to be given by NALSA) the form will be forwarded to the Secretary, DLSA within a period of 5 days, pending integration in the ICJS. 3) The District Level Empowered Committee will direct release of funds for surety on the recommendation of DLSA within a period of 5 days from the date of receipt of the report, pending integration in the ICJS. 4) The District Level Empowered Committee shall 10 meet on every 1st and 3rd Monday, (and in the event if there is holiday on such days, then on the next working days) of each month to consider the cases recommended by DLSA. 5) For cases where the Empowered Committee recommends that the identified UTP be integration in the ICJS. This decision would simultaneously be informed to DLSA and Jail Authorities by email, pending integration in the ICJS. In the event, the fund is not forthwith deposited within 5 days in Court, and the UTР not released, the Jail authorities should on the 6th day, inform the DLSA. If the prisoner is acquitted/convicted, then appropriate orders may be passed by the trial Court so that the money comes back to the Government's account as this is only for the purposes of securing bail unless the accused is entitled to the benefit of bail under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C. [S.430(3) 11 BNSS] in which event the amount can be utilised for bail by the Trial Court to enable the accused to approach the Appellate Court and also if the Appellate Court grants bail under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.[S.430(1) BNSS]; 6) If the bail surety amount is higher than Rs.50,000/- the Empowered Committee may exercise its discretion to pay such higher amount not exceeding Rs.1 lakh. If the Empowered Committee declines to exercise discretion, it would inform the Secretary, DLSA forthwith of its decision by email (and not later than 2 days), pending integration in the ICJS, to enable the Secretary, DLSA to instruct a Legal Aid Advocate to move the Court granting bail or any superior Court to have the surety amount reduced. Once the Secretary, DLSA instructs a Legal Aid Advocate to seek reduction of surety amount, this application/Petition would be filed by the Legal Aid Advocate within 7 days of the case being assigned to the Legal Aid Advocate." Accordingly, we direct the Union of India to carry out the necess he direction, failing which appropriate orders will be passed, including a direction to the Chief Secretary of the State to appear before this Court nad imposition of adequate costs. List the matters on 26.11.2025 at 2 p.m.S