Headnote
AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed
The Division Bench was constituted pursuant to a referral order passed by a Single Judge (N.J. Jamadar, J.) under Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960, to resolve a conflict between two Single Judge decisions on whether an accused shown as absconding in an initial charge-sheet is entitled to default bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon his subsequent arrest, if no supplementary charge-sheet is filed within the stipulated period.
Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari had held in Anil Somdatta Nagpal that once a charge-sheet is filed under Section 173(2) CrPC and cognizance is taken, a subsequent arrest of an accused does not revive the right to default bail, since any further report under Section 173(8) is in the nature of further investigation and does not restore the indefeasible right extinguished upon filing of the original charge-sheet. Justice S.B. Shukre had taken a contrary view in Pankaj, holding that where an accused is arrested after being shown as absconding in the original charge-sheet, completion of investigation against him is signified only by the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8), and failure to file the same within the period prescribed under Section 167(2) gives the accused an indefeasible right to default bail.
The Division Bench examined the constitutional underpinnings of Section 167(2) CrPC in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasising that the default bail provision is a legislative exposition of the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary detention and must be interpreted to serve the object of personal liberty. The Court noted that the remand of the applicant after his arrest on 28 August 2021 was recorded under Section 167 and not Section 309 CrPC, which was significant to the determination of his entitlement to default bail.
Catchwords:
default bail
Section 167(2) CrPC
supplementary charge-sheet
Section 173(8) CrPC
absconding accused
wanted accused
indefeasible right
personal liberty
Article 21 Constitution
further investigation
cognizance
referral order
conflicting Single Judge decisions
© LegalFirms.in — Headnote is proprietary. Raw judgment text is in the public domain
per Section 52(1)(p) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Full Judgment Text
```json
{
"title": "Sunil Vitthal Wagh vs The State Of Maharashtra",
"case_number": "Criminal Bail Application No.2472 of 2022 with Interim Application No.2592 of 2024 in Criminal Bail Application No.2472 of 2022",
"side": "criminal",
"date_of_judgment": "2024-12-19",
"bench": "Revati Mohite Dere, Prithviraj K. Chavan",
"reportable": true,
"parties_petitioner": "Sunil Vitthal Wagh",
"parties_respondent": "The State of Maharashtra through Senior Inspector Pandharpur City Police Station",
"result": "other",
"headnote": "The Division Bench was constituted pursuant to a referra
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 →
From ₹167/month.
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.
