Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167 – Condition imposed to deposit a sum on default/statutory bail – Sustainability of – The High Court accepted the prayer of the appellant to release him on the default bail/statutory bail u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C., however, considering the earlier undertaking given by the wife of the appellant in the Court of the Magistrate while considering bail application u/s. 437 Cr. P.C. i.e. to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/-, while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail, the High Court imposed the condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- before the Magistrate and was also directed to report before the concerned police station daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation – On appeal, held: The High Court has committed a grave error in imposing a condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/ statutory bail – The only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail u/s. 167(2), Cr. P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within
60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60 th or 90 th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail – No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed – Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. – Thus, the condition imposed by the High Court to deposit Rs. 8,00,000/-, while releasing the appellant on default bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and is quashed – Also, the condition imposed by the High Court, namely, directing the appellant to report before the concerned police station at 10.00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned, the same is also unsustainable as it is too harsh – Instead, the appellant is directed to cooperate with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when called for.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether while releasing the appellant-accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., any condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court, could have been imposed? [Para 8][1041-E]
2. Considering the scheme and the object and purpose of default bail/statutory bail, this Court is of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking into consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular bail application, before the Magistrate, the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. However, as observed by this Court in catena of decisions and more particularly in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul, where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default bail, and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused applies for default bail and furnish bail. Therefore, the only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. [Para 9][1041-F-H; 1042-A-C]
3. The circumstances while considering the regular bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, while considering the application for default bail/statutory bail. Under the circumstances, the condition imposed by the High Court to deposit Rs.8,00,000/-, while releasing the appellant on default bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 9.2][1042-F]
4. Now so far as condition imposed by the High Court, namely, directing the appellant to report before the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned, the same is also unsustainable, as it is too harsh. Instead, condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on breach of such condition. [Para 10][1042-G-H; 1043-A]
Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67: [2017] 8 SCR 785 – 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.