A legal process in which someone who has been accused of a crime is allowed to admit to being guilty of a less serious crime, in order to avoid a trial, is referred to as the system of Plea Bargaining[1]. It is not a new concept; there already are around 90 countries in whose legal systems there is a provision for the concept of plea bargaining. This article tries to explore the genesis and notion of plea bargaining and the present state of remedy in India.

This article critically analyzes the provisions of law relating to plea bargaining and goes ahead to discuss the various types of plea bargaining. Further it also throws light on how the Indian Judiciary has implemented the concept of plea bargaining. This article also stresses on the advantages and shortcomings of 'Plea Bargaining'. The article concludes that this concept has been implemented in an extremely conscious manner and this tool is to be used judiciously with careful caution, keeping in mind the interests of the public.

Introduction
The Indian democracy has been facing a chronic dis-balance in the number of cases being filed and the number of disposals happening. The Indian Judiciary is flooded with pending cases, the trial life span is exceedingly long resulting in a high legal expenditure. It is a well known phrase that Justice delayed is Justice denied, so it's a matter of concern as to how many people actually do get Justice in due time. It is correctly quoted that "If there is one sector which has kept away from the reforms process it is the administration of justice[2]." So, the problem of backlog of cases has been haunting the Indian Courts for a long time.

The Government has come up with various fire-fighting measures like Lok nyayalays, fast track courts, gram nyayalays etc. to tackle the problem of pendency of cases, expediate the disposal of cases and to pacify the suffering of under-trial prisoners. Plea Bargaining is one such measure, introduced by the legislature in 2005, by inserting a new Chapter XXI-A through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 and Sections 265 A - L were added in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

History and Evolution in India

In India, the concept of Plea Bargaining was inspired from the Doctrine of Nolo Contendere[3]. Plea Bargaining provides for pre - trail negotiations between the defence and the prosecution during which an accused might plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions by the prosecution[4]. India has a rich legal history covering the ancient and medieval eras, characterized by a wealth of legal practices. These periods saw the widespread usage of methods such as arbitration and mediation, which were widely employed for resolving disputes, bypassing the need for lengthy court trials, and so on.

Under British colonial rule, India's legal system went through substantial transformations by adopting components of British common law. However, the formal practice of plea bargaining, as observed in modern times, was not present in the colonial legal system. Although there have been historical instances that can be labelled as plea bargains, the modern concept only emerged in the 19th century, having traces in American Judiciary.

India did not feel the need for plea bargaining due to the presence of the jury system until the 1960s, when legal representation was permitted. Then, in the year 1991, the 142nd report of the Law Commission of India[5] was released, which mooted the idea of 'concessional treatment' of those who plead guilty on their own volition but was careful to underscore that it would not involve any plea bargaining or "haggling" with the prosecution. The report further stated that such a practice is consistent with both the Constitution and the Fairness Principles. It further addressed coherent contentions and further conducted a survey, which established that the majority of the legal community was in favour of such practice.

The Law Commission, in its subsequent reports as well, underscored the need for such a practice. In its 154th report[6] in 1996, it called for having a remedial measure for the timely disposal of trials for the betterment of under-trial prisoners.

Then in 2001, in its 177th report[7], the need for the concept of plea bargaining was reiterated. And in 2003, the Justice Malimath Committee[8] suggested reforms to the criminal justice system and endorsed various recommendations of the Law Commission with regard to plea bargaining.

The question of plea bargaining's legitimacy and constitutionality was then settled in case State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor, (2005)[9], the court recognized the value of plea bargaining and that each "plea of guilt", which is considered to be part of the process of a criminal trial, should not be assessed factually but rather evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

In an attempt to streamline the judicial system and reduce the burden on India's overloaded courts, the implementation of plea bargaining was officially introduced. Its main objective is to provide an opportunity for the accused individuals to willingly admit their guilt in exchange for a reduced charge or sentence. Initially, plea bargaining exclusively applied to certain types of offences, particularly those carrying shorter sentences, such as minor misdemeanours, but as time goes on, its ambit goes on expanding.

Implementation and challenges
Despite being introduced into Indian legislation; the execution of plea bargaining has encountered hurdles time and again. Factors such as cultural influences, socio-economic circumstances, and a lack of knowledge among the accused individuals have all played a role in hindering its acceptance. The effectiveness of plea bargaining relies on the discretion of the prosecutors and the judges, as well as the willingness of both parties to engage in a negotiation.

Present-day situation
Currently, plea bargaining remains an integral part of India's criminal justice system, primarily utilised for speeding up trials and alleviating the court's caseload in cases which are related to minor offences. Its impact on case resolution has been diverse, resulting in some instances being swiftly and efficiently resolved through this mechanism.

Categories of Plea-Bargaining
The concept of plea bargaining is divided into broad categories, each category depending upon the nature of prosecutorial concession that is granted.

The first type being "charge bargaining" refers to when the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange of a promise by the prosecutor to dismiss some of the charges initially brought against the defendant[10]. This type is permissible in cases for which maximum imprisonment is seven years or less. The second type is "sentence bargaining" which refers to a promise by the prosecutor to recommend a specific sentence or to refrain from recommending in a specific sentence in exchange for a plea of guilt[11].

In this type, the defendant usually pleads guilty for all the offences charged against him in expectation of a lesser amount of sentence than they might get if convicted in the trial. These two types are the most commonly used methods of plea bargaining, however, they are not the only ones. Another type is "fact bargaining" which refers to an agreement between the defendant and the prosecution where they both agree on specific facts or evidence that will be presented or omitted at the trial[12].

This way, only a particular set of facts is presented to the court. This could affect the strength of the case, and there are chances that a more favourable outcome would come in favour of the defendant. This type is usually not favored by the courts as it potentially involves a certain degree of bias leading to a more favourable outcome in favour of the defendant. Another type is "Count bargaining" where the defendant pleads guilty to only some charges filed by the prosecution, while others are dropped.

This is mainly prevalent when someone is facing many charges and thus agrees to admit only a few of them to avoid more serious consequences. There is one more type called the "Alford Plea" where the defendant maintains his innocence but also admits that the prosecution has enough evidence that is likely to secure his conviction. This way, the defendant makes a plea deal without explicitly admitting his guilt. Thus, the defendant here is able to maintain his innocence in the eyes of the court.

One more type is:
"No contest bargaining" where the defendant neither admits his guilt nor denies it. This plea is treated as a guilty plea for sentencing purposes, but it can also protect the defendant, to some extent, from civil liability because they have not admitted their fault.

Legal Provisions that provide for Plea Bargaining

Sections 265 A to 265 L[13] of the Code of Criminal Procedures are inserted by the recent Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2005[14] by adding Chapter XXIA to the Code.

Section 265-A explains when the concept of plea bargaining would come into picture. According to this section, plea bargaining can be made where a report under Section 173 of the CrPC[15] is made or a magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence. After examining the complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC[16], he issues the process under Section 204 of the CrPC[17] for the offences that are punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment.

Sec 265-B says that the person who wants to avail of this plea has to file an application in court in which the trial for such an offence is pending. In the application, the defendant has to tell his case in brief, and along with the application, an affidavit has to be attached in which he has to swear that he is filing this application willfully and after understanding all the consequences of taking this plea. Also, the defendant has to mention that he has not been previously convicted by a court in a case in which he had been charged with that same offence.

After receiving the application, the court will issue notice to the complainant or to the public prosecutor, as the case may be, and the accused has to appear on the date fixed for the case. After this, when everyone appears for the case, the court shall record the statement of the accused in front of a camera where the other party is not present to satisfy itself that the accused has filed the application voluntarily.

Once the court is satisfied that the accused has filed the plea voluntarily, it can ask the party to go for a mutually satisfactory disposition where the victim is compensated by the accused, and then a date is fixed for the next hearing. But if the court thinks that the application was not filed voluntarily or that the accused has been previously charged for the same offence, it shall proceed further in accordance with the procedure of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the stage where such an application was filed.

As per Section 265-C, where the court is satisfied that the application of plea bargaining was filed voluntarily under a case instituted on a police report or otherwise than on a police report, the court shall issue notice to the parties and, where required, to the public prosecutor and police officer to participate in the meeting and do a MSD. Throughout this process, the court has the duty to ensure that the parties in the meeting are working voluntarily. The court is under the duty to ensure that the parties are voluntarily participating in the whole process, and if the accused or the victim wants, they can participate in the meeting along with their pleader.

Then as per Section 265-D, where the MSD worked out successfully, the court has to prepare a report of such a disposition, which will be signed by all the persons present in that disposition along with the presiding officer of the court. But if the MSD didn't work out, the court has to record its observations and then proceed further with the case in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC from the stage where the application of plea was filed.

When there is a satisfactory disposition of the case under the previous section, the court shall under Section 265-E proceed by awarding compensation to the victim as per the disposition arrived at and, at the same time, hear the parties on necessary things like the quantum of the punishment. Then, if the accused falls under the purview of Section 360 of the CrPC[18] or under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958[19], or any other law, he may be released on probation to provide for the benefit of any such law. Then the court will see that if there is any clause for the minimum punishment for that offence, then the court will sentence the accused to half of the minimum punishment for that offence. And in certain cases, the sentence is made one-fourth of the punishment provided or extendable, as the case may be, for that offence.

In regard to the terms of the previous section, the court as per Section 265-F has to deliver its judgement in the open court, and the same shall be signed by the presiding officer of the court.

The judgement provided by the court will be considered final as per Section 265-G. And no appeal can lie in any court against such a judgement except the Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution[20] or the writ petition under Article 226[21] and Article 227[22] of the Constitution.

In accordance with Section 265-H, the court shall possess all the powers that are necessary for fulfilling its responsibilities under this chapter, including those related to granting bail, conducting trials for offences, and handling other matters related to the case resolution as prescribed by this Code of CrPC.

As per Section 265-I, the role of Section 428[23] of the CrPC shall apply in this case, and the time period of detention already undergone by the accused shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed. This will work in the same manner as it applies in respect of imprisonment under other provisions of this Code.

As per Section 265-J, the provisions stated in this Chapter shall remain valid regardless of any conflicting provisions found in other sections of this Code, and no interpretation of the provisions in this Chapter shall be limited by any of the aforementioned conflicting provisions. And for the purpose of this Chapter, the term "public prosecutor" shall have the same meaning assigned to it under clause (u) of Section 2[24] and shall also include an assistant public prosecutor designated under Section 25[25] of the CrPC.

In accordance with Section 265-K, the statements or facts that were stated by the accused in the application filed by him regarding plea bargaining shall not be used for any other purpose except for the purpose of this chapter.

As per Section 265-L, nothing in this Chapter shall apply to any juvenile or child as defined in clause (k) of Section 2[26]of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

Exceptions to the Plea-Bargaining System[27]

Any accused person above the age of 18 years and against whom a trial is pending, can file an application for plea bargaining. But there are some exceptions to this general rule.

• The offence against the accused should carry a maximum sentence of less than 7 years.
• The offence should not have been committed by the accused against a woman or a child below the age of 14 years.
• The accused should not have been covered under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
• The accused should not have earlier been convicted for the same offence.
• The offence should not affect the socio-economic condition of the country.

What offences affect the socio-economic condition of the country?

• Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• The Commission of Sati Prevention Act, 1987.
• The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
• The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
• The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992.
• Provisions of Fruit Products Order, 1955 (issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955).
• Provisions of Meat Food Products Order, 1973 (issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955).
• Offences with respect to animals that find place in Schedule I and Part II of the Schedule II as well as offences related to altering of boundaries of protected areas under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
• The SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• Offences mentioned in the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
• Offences listed in Sections 23 to 28 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
• The Army Act, 1950.
• The Air Force Act, 1950.
• The Navy Act, 1957.
• Offences specified in Sections 59 to 81 and 83 of the Delhi Metro Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002.
• The Explosives Act, 1884.
• Offences specified in Sections 11 to 18 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955.
• Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Plea Bargaining and the Indian Judiciary

The Indian Apex Court has always maintained that this practice is unconstitutional, illegal and would tend to encourage corruption and collusion between the parties[29]. The concept of plea bargaining was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the first time in Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra[30]. In this case the Court held that the idea of plea bargaining is immoral or at best a necessary evil. The State can never compromise with the accused. It must enforce the law.

Therefore, open methods of compromise are impossible. So, it should not be introduced in the Indian criminal justice system. A conviction based on the plea of guilty entered by the accused as a result of plea-bargaining cannot be sustained. Such a procedure would be clearly unfair, unreasonable and unjust and would be violative of Article 21[31] of the Constitution.

In Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat and another[32] the Hon'ble Supreme Court again disapproved the concept of plea bargaining and held it unconstitutional. In Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka[33] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to induce or lead an accused to plead guilty under a promise or assurance that he would be let off lightly is violation of Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

A conviction of an accused on the basis of plea bargaining is contrary to public policy and it is not permissible to dispose of the case on the basis of plea bargaining. It is further observed that by plea bargaining, court cannot dispose of criminal cases and the court has to decide it on merits. Mere admission or acceptance of the guilt must not be a ground for reduction of sentence.

In Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana[34], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that neither the Trial Court nor the High Court has the jurisdiction to bypass on the basis of a plea-bargain the minimum sentence prescribed by law.

But in State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchanji Thakor[35], the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court recognised the concept of plea bargaining and held that the very object of law is to provide easy, cheap and expeditious justice by resolution of disputes, including the trial of criminal cases and considering the present realistic profile of the pendency and delay in disposal in the

administration of law and justice, fundamental reforms are inevitable. There should not be anything static. It can thus be said that it is really a measure and redressal and it shall provide a new shape in the judicial system.

In the case of Kasambhai Ardul Rehmanbhai v. State of Gujarat (1980)[36], The Apex Court ruled in this particular case that plea bargaining is contrary to public policy. Furthermore, it expressed dissatisfaction with the magistrate's decision to accept the plea bargaining of the accused.

In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika (2000)[37], The Supreme court disparaged the concept of plea bargaining and held this practice as unconstitutional and illegal. The court determined that the primary objective of this concept was to accelerate the resolution of cases and relieve the strain on the judicial system, emphasising that it should not be utilised as a means to allow the guilty to avoid punishment.

The Gujarat High Court appreciated this procedure and observed in State of Gujarat v Natwar Harchanji Thakor[38] that, "The very object of law is to provide easy, cheap and expeditious justice by resolution of disputes, including the trial of criminal cases and considering the present realistic profile of the pendency and delay in disposal in the administration of law and justice, fundamental reforms are inevitable. There should not be anything static. It can thus be said that plea bargaining is really a measure and redressal and it shall add a new dimension in the realm of judicial reforms."

Justifications for Plea Bargaining

The benefits justifying the concept of plea bargaining are categorized in a four-fold manner:

1. To the defendantThe foremost reason why the defendant pleads guilty is the expectation of a relief in the form of reduction of sentence or dropping few charges against him. By making the plea, a guilty person no doubt still has to face some punishment, but it comes with a relief and this brings the possibility of maintaining his family ties and fulfilling his obligations towards his family. Quick disposal of the trials does not require the defendant to face the social stigma that he would have to in case of a full trial.
   
   An expeditious and smaller trial gives the defendant a breathing space from incurring heavy expenses for the full trial. There are more chances that the guilty plea will be accepted by the court; the court would not be skeptic to reject the plea on menial issues, and that is far more profitable for the accused. It is also a factor in reforming the offender by accepting the responsibility for their actions and by submitting them voluntarily before the law, without having an expensive and time-consuming trial. Plea bargaining shall not benefit the habitual offenders or established criminals.
    
2. To the attorneyThe prosecutors as well as the defence attorney, by making the defendant agree to plead guilty, reduce their caseload and save their time in preparing for the upcoming matters. This way, they could focus on other more severe offence cases pending with them as well as get some time for themselves. The prosecutor's conviction rate is also improved if the defendant agrees to accept his guilt. The resources of the attorney's, which otherwise would be involved in completing the trial, are also saved and can be devoted to other cases to dispose of them more quickly and efficiently. This system offers advantage to the Public Prosecutors by relieving them of the burden of examining fragile and feeble witnesses like children and women of the household.
    
3. To the judgesOne of the merits of this system is that it helps the court to manage its load of work, and hence it would result in a reduction of the backlog of cases; another is that it relieves the magistrate of the burden to prepare a detailed judgment. Instead of putting the resources for investigating the matter, managing and organising documents, etc., the court can divert such resources into other serious offence cases whose trial is needed to be completed more urgently.
    
4. To the victimIf the defendant is ready to accept his guilt through the plea-bargaining process, which could lessen his sentence, the victim will be served justice as the defendant in such a case will be declared guilty with certainty if other circumstances also align with it. It will reduce the stress and trauma that the victim has to face in case of a full-length trial.

Drawbacks of Plea Bargaining
While we look into the merits of plea bargaining, we must be neutral to accept the demerits it is vested with. Plea bargaining is nothing but a cover up of the inadequacies of the Government in dealing with each and every case that comes before it[42]. It indirectly shows the incompetence of the traditional procedural laws[43]. Plea bargaining can result in the accused person avoiding accountability for their actions, as they are able to plead guilty to a lesser charge without having to go through a trial. This is a form of leniency that may not be justified in some instances.

The bargaining (or negotiation) procedure makes it vital for the prosecutor to consult the police for matters of evidence and other factors (just like the court depends upon the chargesheet filed by the police), and in a country like India, the very term police would bring with itself a lot of corruption, coercion, threats etc. to the accused or the victim.

And through the medium of police, all the politicians, anti-social elements, rich dominating class can gain control of the negotiations. The scope of plea bargaining isn't secured in privacy, it needs to be checked and the interference of the police has to be eliminated to a reasonable extent. It is also understood that this system has wide amplitude to benefit the rich for they will be able to influence the prosecutors and the victims and the police during the bargaining procedure, and will dominate the poor who have no cognizance in our society.

There are other certain flaws of this concept as well. Conceptually, the plea-bargaining process reduces the administration of criminal justice to a barter system, where the haggling is between legal punishment and gains to the wrongdoer. Secondly, even the innocent accused would capitulate to wrong compromises and wrong convictions in order to escape from the ordeal of a prolonged and expensive trial.

Thirdly, cases in which the accused might finally secure acquittal would be converted into cases of unmerited conviction. Such accused can develop a scornful attitude to the justice dispensing system. Plea bargaining is a compromise between the prosecution and the accused. One course of argument questions whether a State should compromise. It is contended that the "State" can never compromise. It must "enforce the law" and hence the notion of law enforcement repudiates the idea of compromise as immoral or at best a necessary evil.

Therefore, open methods of compromise are impossible. The State is the guardian of its people and it is incumbent upon it to ensure a criminal justice system which serves as a lifeguard to the entire social Diaspora.

Some of the major drawbacks of the process of plea bargaining, as observed through various studies, are as follows:

1. Offenders are disposed of undeterred, untreated, and with minimal regard for public safety.
2. Plea bargaining undermines the basic premise of "crime and punishment" that is the foundation of the criminal law and the criminal justice system.
3. Plea bargaining is an infringement on the court's responsibility and discretion in sentencing.
4. Bargain-based justice is always more of a bargain for the accused than it is for the state and the public. If the defendant does not consider a plea bargain offer generous enough, he or she can simply hold out for trial, knowing that the legal strength of the state's case will be weakened further by time.
5. Prosecution has the power to present the accused with unconscionable pressures. The prosecution has the incentive to maximize the benefit of pleading guilty in the weakest cases. The more likely an acquittal at trial, the more attractive a guilty plea is to the prosecution. But in a borderline case that does go forward, the prosecution may very well threaten the most serious consequences to those accused who may very well be innocent.
6. Unfair sentences can be imposed on defendants who plead not guilty and are convicted at trial. The sentence may reflect a punishment for not having entered a bartered guilty plea, thereby penalizing the defendant for exercising the constitutional right to trial.
7. Plea bargaining is dominated entirely by practical considerations that should be irrelevant to the disposition of criminal cases. Such factors neglect justice, penological considerations, the plight of the victim, and the needs of society.
8. By sidestepping formal court proceedings and due process, plea bargaining allows unconstitutional police practices to go unchecked.
9. Unwarranted variation in prison terms attributable to plea bargaining is a source of inmate riots. "No sentence should (ever) be imposed simply because it may result in less expensive, faster resolution of the case." Bartered guilty pleas are not evidence of genuine repentance for crime, the acceptance of the legitimacy of punishment, or the potential for rehabilitation.

Conclusion
Undoubtedly, plea bargaining is a disputed concept. The Supreme Court has time and again criticised against the concept of plea bargaining, saying that negotiations in the criminal cases is not permissible. But due to the fact that plea bargaining provides easy, cheap and expeditious justice by resolution of disputes, including the trial of the criminal cases and considering the present realistic profile of the pendency and delay in disposal of criminal cases, the government found it acceptable and finally introduced it. It has been welcomed by few and abandoned by others.

Although plea bargaining expediates the cases and reduces the case-load, it cannot be ignored that it does so in an unconstitutional manner. But perhaps, we have no other choice than to adopt and adapt with this system. As a final word, this concept is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It comes with its own set of pros and cons. It is upon the three organs of our democracy to weigh the goods over bads while implementing and executing the system of plea bargaining. At this stage it can be safely held that 'Law is not a Panacea.

It cannot solve all problems, but it can reduce the severity'. Plea bargaining in India endeavors to address the same, which despite its shortcomings can go a long way in speeding the caseload disposition and attributing efficiency and credibility to Indian Criminal Justice. There must be some safeguards to apply the concept of plea bargaining after taking considerations of all the facts such as nature and gravity of offence, previous records of an accused etc.

It has almost been a decade since plea bargaining was introduced in our legislature, however, it is not used that often and effectively. This gives rise to the need to spread awareness among litigants, prosecution, defense, police and the general people about the efficient use of this system. A thorough study of its working and its impact on conviction and crime rate should be analyzed. To make this more useful and to fulfil its desired objectives, there is need to amend the provisions to cope with drawbacks or criticisms and to move with the present needs.

Bibliography
Books:

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Published by Professionals publication.
• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (17th edn, 2010)

Caselaws:

1. State of Gujarat v Natwar HArchanji Thakur, (2005) Cr.L.J 2957
2. Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 3 SCC 684
3. Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 854
4. Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana
5. Kasambhai Ardul Rehmanbhai v. State of Gujarat (1980)
6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika, AIR 2000 SC 164

Dictionary:

• Cambridge Dictionary – available at PLEA BARGAINING | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary.

Journals:

1. "The Defense Attorney's Role in Plea Bargaining." Yale Law Journal 84 (1975): 1179–1314 available at The Defense Attorney's Role in Plea Bargaining (uchicago.edu)
2. J.R. Singla 'Plea Bargaining- A Speedy Justice for under-trials'
3. Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
4. Article by Government of Maharashtra on Plea Bargaining available on:

   https://legalservices.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/Pdf/plea-bargaining.pdf

5. Article by Anubhuti Dungdung – "Plea Bargaining – The Indian Experience" available at:

   https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2049826

6. Stephen J. Schulhofer, 'Is Plea Bargaining Inevitable?' 97(1984) Harv. L. Rev. 1037, 1107.

Websites:

1. www.indiakanoon.com
2. www.latestlaws.com
3. www.patnahighcourt.gov.in
4. www.advocatekhoj.com
5. www.mha.gov.in
6. www.legalservices.maharashtra.gov.in

End Notes:

1. available at:

   https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/plea-bargaining

   . Last accessed on 09/03/2024
2. Arun Jaitley, the then Union Law Minister, India's Judicial Reforms, R.N. Malhotra Memorial Lecture, India International Centre, 14 February 2001.
3. "The Defense Attorney's Role in Plea Bargaining." Yale Law Journal 84 (1975): 1179–1314.
4. ibid
5. available at:

   https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/bja/PDF/UPLOADED/BJA/MISC/392.PDF

   . Last accessed on 09/03/2024
6. available at:

   https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/witnessidentityprotection/21b.php?Title=Witness Identity Protection and Witness Protection Programmes&STitle=154 th Report of the Law Commission (1996)

   . Last accessed on 09/03/2024
7. available at:

   https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/supreme-court-of-india/2019/march/2019-latest-caselaw-505-sc

   . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
8. available at:

   https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/criminal_justice_system.pdf

   . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
9. 27 ibid
10. Article by Anubhuti Dungdung – "Plea Bargaining – The Indian Experience" available at:

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2049826

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
11. Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 3 SCC 684
12. Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 854
13. State of Gujarat v Natwar HArchanji Thakur, (2005) Cr.L.J 2957
14. available at:

    https://legalservices.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/Pdf/plea-bargaining.pdf

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
15. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1412034/

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
16. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/444619/

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
17. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1827798/#:~:text=204.,Issue of process.&text=at a certain time before,prosecution witnesses has been filed

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
18. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/755395/

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
19. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/755395https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167447/

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
20. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/427855/

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
21. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
22. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331149/

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
23. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/914361/#:~:text=imprisonment on such conviction shall,of imprisonment imposed on him

    . Last accessed at 10/03/2024
24. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1492800/

    . Last accessed at 10/03/2024
25. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90679/

    . Last accessed at 10/03/2024
26. available at:

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/404852/

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
27. available at:

    https://legalservices.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/Pdf/plea-bargaining.pdf

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
28. Article by Anubhuti Dungdung – "Plea Bargaining – The Indian Experience" available at:

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2049826

    . Last accessed on 10/03/2024
    

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Adv.Priyanka Sanjay Ghorpade

Authentication No: OT465852700025-18-1024