[This Article has been authored by Akshata Das, a Student at Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University]
Introduction
India’s criminal justice system has struggled for years with overcrowded jails and long pre-trial detention. Courts have consistently iterated that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception”, but failures, like arbitrary detention and slow trials, have filled the ranks of undertrials. Latest prison statistics indicate that undertrial detainees constitute about 74% of the total prisoners in India, nearly half of whom are between 18 and 30 years of age. Almost half of these undertrials are between 18–30 years of age, and more than two-thirds come from SC/ST/OBC groups, representing ongoing socioeconomic prejudices. Successive judgments such as Arnesh Kumar v. Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 sought to stem unnecessary remands, yet systemic loopholes persisted. sought to stem unnecessary remands, yet systemic loopholes persisted.
Satendra Kumar Antil v CBI
In Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2024 INSC 134, the Supreme Court squarely tackled this crisis by issuing in depth guidelines. In Satendra Kumar Antil v CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the court observed that the prisons were overcrowded with undertrial inmates and cautioned the State should not be run as a “police state”[1] in a democracy. It reaffirmed that grant of bail should not be refused for any just reason. In Antil, the accused had complied with a CBI investigation but failed to surrender on summons. The Court rejected as unacceptable, the practice (in some states) of keeping in custody such cooperators after a chargesheet was filed.
The judgment categorized offences into four categories (A–D) for simplifying bail procedure. For instance, Category A (offences punishable up to 7 years) cases start by summons and bailable warrant, if necessary, whereas serious categories (B–D, including special statutes) have stricter norms. Most importantly, the Court ruled that an accused who arrives under process need not routinely be jailed; applications for bail must be disposed of on merits without demanding pre-conditioned detention[2]. This gave clear guidelines: if a cooperating accused comes to court (even after warrants or summons), bail is usually granted without demanding a custodial remand.
Government Guidelines
Following Antil, the government and judiciary have taken steps to implement its guidelines into practice. In January 2025, during the Supreme Court hearing for the same case under citation 2024 INSC 134, stringent guidelines were introduced for different high courts and other authorities to change how bail reforms can be brought in.Central directives were:
Ban on Electronic Notices: States and UTs are required to issue standing orders that all notices under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 be personally served by prescribed legal modes, and not by WhatsApp, email or other digital shortcuts. The Court categorically decided that electronic communication is not enough to fulfil the requirements of the law in providing notices. This effectively shut a loophole in some police manuals permitting WhatsApp summons, reiterating that personal service is a must.
Aadhaar-Verified Personal Bonds: The Court supported a suggestion for releasing indigent undertrials on Aadhaar-verified personal recognizance bonds. Under this system, a poor accused could be released on personal bond with Aadhaar-based identity verification, rather than waiting for sureties. In principle, this would end the “class bias” of bail. Remarkably, the Punjab-Haryana High Court had previously directed such Aadhaar integration of surety bonds, but by mid-2025 officials conceded it had not been implemented.
Institutional Monitoring: High Courts were asked to hold monthly meetings of their Antil compliance committees and submit reports of progress. The guidelines are obligatory and not discretionary; the Supreme Court cautioned that officials who disregard these guidelines risk being held in contempt
Concurrently, the Union government instituted a “Support to Poor Prisoners” scheme (May 2023) to support bail bonds and fines for poor inmates. Parliament has approved ₹20 crore annually for the period of 2023–26, but it has seen no take-up so far: as of March 2025, only ₹22.84 lakh had been utilized by the states. Eligibility for the scheme is to be measured after a prisoner has still not been released within 7 days of grant of bail. Jail authorities must inform District Legal Services Authority who shall determine whether the prisoner is financially fit to pay bail within 10 days. After this, a maximum of Rs. 40,000/- can be issued per prisoner, A Ministry of Home Affairs letter informed that there were numerous eligible prisoners who could not yet be identified. Overall, therefore, promising though the scheme was, its practical effect so far has been minimal.
While that is happening, the Supreme Court has also pushed for expeditious bail hearings. In September 2025 it asked all High Courts and trial courts to conclude bail and anticipatory bail applications within two months since they are filed. The bench emphasized that unwarranted delay in matters of liberty is against Article 21 and asked courts to prioritize such petitions. This order takes heart from Antil’s spirit – that pleas for freedom should not be left in limbo forever.
The stark statistics put the imperatives of these reforms into perspective. NCRB’s 2023 statistics indicate approximately 573,000 total prisoners across the country (121% of capacity), of which around 390,000 were undertrials. The undertrials had, on average, spent 3 months to 2 years in jail without trial. Undertrial Review Committees (UTRC) in every district advise candidates for release, yet their recommendations do not bind magistrates; most judges are still unwilling to release poor detainees on personal bond on the fear that they may flee.
Gaps in implementation continue. For example, a 2025 Tribune story reported that Punjab and Haryana authorities had not yet put into effect the Aadhaar bond order of the High Court. Judicial committees monitor progress on a regular basis, but actual change involves ongoing enforcement by police and courts. By contrast, some metrics are relaxing: total prison overcrowding declined from 131% to 121% and the undertrial count decreased by around 2.5% from 2022 to 2023, which indicates initial impacts of lockdown releases and UTRC initiatives. However, undertrial detainees still make up most prisoners, and robust backlogs persist.
Conclusion
Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) is well known as a landmark in Indian bail law. It reiterated that individual freedom is most important and gave elaborate guidelines to prevent frivolous detention. Since then, in the years that have passed, the Supreme Court has gone all out with tangible steps – from prohibiting mechanical arrest and e-notices to encouraging Aadhaar connected personal bonds and demanding speedy bail hearings – to operationalize Antil’s direction. The present bail system shows that there are numerous changes constantly taking place, and more must come. Significantly, India still lacks a specific bail law; consequently, judges have been forced to fashion bail policy through judgments such as Antil and Arnesh Kumar. Briefly, the reforms are steps in the right direction, but a lot needs to be done. The bail system is at a turning point: Antil provided the courts and police with a clear roadmap, but the true test will continue to be in day-to-day implementation. Ultimately, India’s federal system, administrators, police, and judges will have to collaborate to bring these advanced orders into existence.
The Crime & Justice Blog 
Leave a comment