LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/state-nct-of-delhi-vs-rajeev-sharma-20250403/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

State (NCT) of Delhi vs Rajeev Sharma

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
3 April 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2021
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Bela M. Trivedi, Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
Citation
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 617 : 2025 INSC 456
Acts & Sections
Official Secrets Act, 1923 IPC CrPC
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 4 S.C.R. 617 : 2025 INSC 456
Issue for consideration
Issue arose whether the term imprisonment for a term “not less than 10 years” in clause (i) of the proviso (a) to s.167(2) Cr.P.C would include an offence where the punishment of 14 years of imprisonment is prescribed, but no minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed for such offence.
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours – Statutory bail – Grant of – Bail applications filed by the respondent-accused against whom case registered u/ss.3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act and s.120-B IPC – Dismissal of the applications – Respondent then filed application u/s.167(2) seeking release on bail on the ground that 60 days period had expired since he was arrested, and the charge-sheet against him, was not filed – Application dismissed however, held that the statutory bail would have to be considered, if 60 days had elapsed since the day of the remand – Revision by the State – Pending Revision, the respondent filed a fresh petition u/s.167(2) which was also dismissed – Respondent then filed revision petition, which was allowed by the High Court and respondent was granted bail – Correctness:

Held: As per clause(i) of the proviso (a) to s.167(2) the accused is entitled to the benefit of default bail if the investigation has not been completed in ninety days when it relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and in sixty days when it relates to any other offence – Section 3 of the 1923 Act though, prescribes maximum punishment up to 14 years, there is no minimum punishment provided under the said provision and punishment for the offence punishable u/s. 5 is maximum up to three years – On facts, since, the investigation was not completed in sixty days, respondent had become entitled to the default bail u/s.167(2)(a) – High Court rightly released the respondent on bail – Official Secrets Act, 1923 – ss.3, 4, 5 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B. [Paras 6, 7, 10, 12]

Keywords: Statutory bail · Default bail · No minimum period of imprisonment · Imprisonment for not less than 10 years · Detention exceeding 90 days · Detention exceeding 60 days

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment 1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 363/2020 whereby, the High Court had disposed of the said petition by granting the respondent bail subject to the conditions mentioned therein. 2. The broad facts leading to the present Appeal are that, i. a case being FIR No.230/2020 came to be registered on 13.09.2020, at Police Station- Special Cell, Delhi against the Respondent - Accused for the offence punishable under Section 3,4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

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.

All SC judgments →