Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Default bail – Appellant-accused was arrested on 29.01.2022 – 90 days period u/s. 167 was to expire on 29.04.2022 – On 22.04.2022, IO prayed for extension of time to complete the investigation, Trial Court extended time limit to investigate by 30 days in absence of accused – The accused came to be informed about the extension on 23.04.2022 itself – On 22.05.2022, the IO again prayed for further extension, the same was allowed by 30 days – Second Extension was granted in the presence of the accused – In the meantime, accused submitted the default bail application on 10.05.2022 on the ground that at the time when the first extension was granted, the same was not in the presence of the accused and the accused was not kept present thus first extension was bad in law and therefore, the accused acquired right to get the default bail – Application was rejected by Trial Court – Appeal dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: At the time when the default bail application was made on 10.05.2022 there was already an extension and even thereafter, also there was a second extension which was in presence of the accused – Neither the first extension nor the second extension came to be challenged by the accused – Chargesheet filed within the period of extension – Accused not entitled to default bail. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. Sum and substance of law laid-down by this Court in the cases of Sanjay Dutt and Jigar are that while considering the application by the Investigating Agency for extension of time for completing the investigation beyond the period prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC the accused is to be given notice and/or is to be kept present before the Court, so that, the accused had knowledge that the extension is sought and granted. [Para 6.4][832-C-D]
2. In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when two extensions granted by the Court which are not challenged and at the time when the default bail application was made on 10.05.2022 there was already an extension and even thereafter, also there was a second extension which was in presence of the accused and thereafter, when the chargesheet has been filed within the period of extension, the accused is not entitled to be released on statutory/default bail as prayed. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court was in agreement with the ultimate conclusion reached by the High Court denying the statutory/default bail to the accused. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and, in the facts, and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of statutory/default bail. [Paras 7, 8][833-D-F]
Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1290; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 602 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 360; Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC
410 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 263; Narender G. Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 : [2009] 8 SCR 1004 – referred to.
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State (2012) 12 SCC 1 : [2012] 9 SCR 836; Rambeer Shokeen Vs. State (2018)
4 SCC 405 : [2018] 1 SCR 373 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.