[Default Bail] Right accruing to the accused under Section 167(2) CrPC does not get extinguished by subsequent filing of an additional complaint or chargesheet by the investigating agency, SC
- 18:30The SC on October 26, 2020 {M. Ravindran vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence} held that while computing the period under Section 167(2), the day on which accused was remanded to judicial custody has to be excluded and the day on which challan/chargesheet is filed in the court has to be included.
It was observed by the Bench, comprising of Justice U U Lalit, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Vineet Saran, that the history of the enactment of Section 167(2), CrPC and the safeguard of ‘default bail’ contained in the Proviso thereto is intrinsically linked to Article 21 and is nothing but a legislative exposition of the constitutional safeguard that no person shall be detained except in accordance with rule of law. It was emphasized that the right of the accused to be set at liberty takes precedence over the right of the State to carry on the investigation and submit a chargesheet.
The question falling for consideration before the SC was whether the indefeasible right accruing to the appellant under Section 167(2), CrPC gets extinguished by subsequent filing of an additional complaint by the investigating agency. And whether the Court should take into consideration the time of filing of the application for bail, based on default of the investigating agency or the time of disposal of the application for bail while deciding application u/s Sec 167(2).
The SC held that once the accused files an application for bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) he is deemed to have ‘availed of’ or enforced his right to be released on default bail, accruing after expiry of the stipulated time limit for investigation. Thus, it was held that if the accused applies for bail under Section 167(2), CrPC read with Section 36A (4), NDPS Act upon expiry of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, the Court must release him on bail forthwith without any unnecessary delay after getting necessary information from the public prosecutor. It was held that such prompt action will restrict the prosecution from frustrating the legislative mandate to release the accused on bail in case of default by the investigative agency.
It was held that the right to be released on default bail continues to remain enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the bail application; or subsequent filing of the chargesheet or a report seeking extension of time by the prosecution before the Court; or filing of the chargesheet during the interregnum when challenge to the rejection of the bail application is pending before a higher Court.
It was held that however, where the accused fails to apply for default bail when the right accrues to him, and subsequently a chargesheet, additional complaint or a report seeking extension of time is preferred before the Magistrate, the right to default bail would be extinguished. It was held that the Magistrate would be at liberty to take cognizance of the case or grant further time for completion of the investigation, as the case may be, though the accused may still be released on bail under other provisions of the CrPC.
It was held that notwithstanding the order of default bail passed by the Court, by virtue of Explanation I to Section 167(2), the actual release of the accused from custody is contingent on the directions passed by the competent Court granting bail. It was held that if the accused fails to furnish bail and/or comply with the terms and conditions of the bail order within the time stipulated by the Court, his continued detention in custody is valid.
The appeal was allowed accordingly by the SC.