Art. 324. Bail will not be granted either: (Wording provided by Law No. 12,403, of 2011).
I – to those who, in the same process, have broken bail previously granted or violated, without just cause, any of the obligations referred to in articles 327 and 328 of this Code; (Wording provided by Law No. 12,403 of 2011).
II – in case of civil or military arrest; (Wording provided by Law No. 12,403 of 2011).
III – (Revoked by Law No. 12,403 of 2011).
IV – when the reasons that authorize the decree of preventive detention are present (Article 312). (Wording provided by Law No. 12,403 of 2011).
Prohibition of granting new bail
Impediment to the imposition of a new bail: Once the defendant or the accused has broken the bail for one of the reasons in article 328 or 341 , he will not be entitled to a new bail. This does not mean that he will necessarily be arrested, since in the current system, bail is just one among other precautionary measures other than prison ( article 319, item VIII ). He will only be arrested if the judge deems it necessary and appropriate, using the power conferred on him by paragraph 4 of article 282 , which authorizes pre-trial detention for anyone who fails to comply with a precautionary measure other than the prison imposed.
Breaking bail and maintenance of obligations
Breaking bail and maintaining the obligations of the accused: Failure by the accused to comply with article 319 does not necessarily mean imprisonment. In this case, the judge “may replace the measure, impose another in addition, or, as a last resort, decree the preventive provision” ( article 282, paragraph 4 ). Therefore, under the terms of this provision, the magistrate “may impose another measure in addition”, that is, maintain the same measure by imposing one more. Thus, if the accused fails to comply with one of the obligations of the institution of the guarantee “failing to appear at the act of the process” ( article 341, item I ), for example, the judge can keep this obligation (even if the guarantee is broken) and combine it with another or others, without ordering the arrest.
Imprisonment of the maintenance debtor: Article 5, item LXVII, of the CF states that there will be no civil imprisonment for debt, except that of the person responsible for the voluntary and inexcusable default of the maintenance obligation and that of the unfaithful depository. The arrest of the maintenance debtor is legally authorized. It aims to force the debtor to pay the maintenance payments that are in arrears. The granting of bail is therefore incompatible with the imprisonment of the maintenance debtor.
Imprisonment of the unfaithful trustee: It is prohibited by international agreements signed by Brazil. Precedents were edited in the STF and STJ prohibiting this arrest. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( Decree 592/92 ) prescribes in Article 11 that “no one may be imprisoned just because he cannot fulfill a contractual obligation”. Decree 678/92 , which enacts the American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José, Costa Rica), states in Article 7, item 7 , that “no one shall be detained for debt. This principle does not limit the orders of the competent judicial authority issued due to non-compliance with maintenance obligations”. The summary 419 of the STJ: “Civil imprisonment of an unfaithful judicial depositary is ruled out” and binding number 25 of the STF: “The civil imprisonment of an unfaithful depository is unlawful, whatever the type of deposit”.