Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Right of default bail – A chargesheet, if can be filed in piecemeal without first completing the investigation and whether the filing of such chargesheet extinguishes the right of an accused for grant of default bail – Held: No – Without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail u/s.167(2) – Such a chargesheet, if filed, would not extinguish the right to default bail u/s.167(2) – In such cases, Trial Court cannot continue to remand an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without offering the arrested person default bail – Right of default bail u/s.167(2) is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 – Constitution of India – Article 21.
Constitution of India – Art.32 – Writ petition – Maintainability of – Held: Constitution entrusted the Supreme Court with the most important task of protecting civil liberties of individuals, and the society at large – Article 32 falls within Part III of the Constitution which deals with fundamental rights and thus, the right to invoke Article 32 is a fundamental right in itself – The relief of statutory bail u/s.167(2), Cr.PC is a fundamental right directly flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution – Thus, violation of such a right directly attracts consideration u/Article 32 – In the present case, preliminary objection raised by respondent regarding the maintainability of the writ petition is rejected – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – History of the provision of default bail – Law Commission Reports, recommendations – Discussed – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – s.167.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The relief of statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC is a fundamental right directly flowing from Article
21 of the Constitution of India, and the violation of such a right directly attracts consideration under Article 32 of the Constitution. The preliminary objections raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution stand rejected. [Para 14][834-B-C]
1.2 Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC was enacted to ensure that the investigating agency completes the investigation within the prescribed time limit, failing which no accused could be detained if they are willing to avail bail. [Para 21][839-A-B]
Law Commission of India Report No. 14, Vol.-I (1958); Law Commission Report No. 41 (September,1969), Para.
14.19 – referred to.
M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) 2 SCC 485; Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 773 – relied on.
1.3 The right of statutory bail, however, is extinguished, if the charge sheet is filed within the stipulated period. The question of resorting to a supplementary chargesheet u/s 173(8) of the Cr.PC only arises after the main chargesheet has been filed, and as such, a supplementary chargesheet, wherein it is explicitly stated that the investigation is still pending, cannot under any circumstance, be used to scuttle the right of default bail, for then, the entire purpose of default bail is defeated, and the filing of a chargesheet or a supplementary chargesheet becomes a mere formality, and a tool, to ensue that the right of default bail is scuttled. First investigation is to be completed, and only then can a chargesheet or a complaint be filed within the stipulated period, and failure to do so would trigger the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.PC. [Paras 24 and 25][840G-H; 841-A-B]
Union of India v. Thamisharasi & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC
190 : [1995] 3 SCR 905; Ashok Munilal Jain & Anr. Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2018)
16 SCC 158 – relied on.
1.4 Without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Such a chargesheet, if filed by an investigating authority without first completing the investigation, would not extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. The trial court, in such cases, cannot continue to remand an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without offering the arrested person default bail. [Para 32][842-E-G]
1.5 In the instant case, during the pendency of the investigation, supplementary chargesheets were filed by the Investigation Agency just before the expiry of 60 days, with the purpose of scuttling the right to default bail accrued in favour the accused. This factual position was missed by the trial court, and instead of offering default bail to the accused, the trial court mechanically accepted the incomplete chargesheets filed by the Investigating Agency, and further continued the remand of the accused beyond the maximum period specified. The Investigating Agency and the trial court, thus, failed to observe the mandate of law, and acted in a manner which was manifestly arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the accused. The interim order of bail passed in favor of the accused is made absolute. [Paras 33 and 35][843-A-C; 843-F]
K. S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors. (2017)
10 SCC 1 : [2017] 10 SCR 569; K. K Kochunni, Moopil Nayar v. State of Madras & Ors. [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR
316 – followed.
State of West Bengal v. Salap Service Station & Ors. (1994) 3 Supp SCC 318; Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 160 : [2016] 1 SCR 194; Ram Narain Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641 : [2003] 1 SCR 119; Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI (2007)
1 SCC 70 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 40 – distinguished. State Of Bihar & Others v. J.A.C Saldanha & Ors. (1980)
1 SCC 554 : [1980] 2 SCR 16 – referred to.
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.