Summary
The Supreme Court granted the appellants entitlement to default bail. Although a charge-sheet had been tendered within ninety days, it was returned for non-compliance with the High Court’s direction concerning the investigating officer’s rank, leaving no investigation papers before the Magistrate when the period expired. The accused applied for bail and expressed willingness to furnish it. Recording a prosecutor’s assurance of completion within two months neither extended the statutory period nor supplied power to do so. Release was subject to trial-court conditions, with liberty for arrest or re-arrest on cogent grounds.
Issues
- Whether a charge-sheet returned before expiry of the statutory period defeated an accrued claim to default bail.
- Whether the High Court’s recording of a prosecutor’s assurance extended the section 167 period.
Provisions considered
- Section 167(2), proviso (a), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Expiry of the applicable ninety-day period without investigation papers before the Magistrate, coupled with the accused’s application and readiness to furnish bail, gave an indefeasible right to default bail. The Code supplied no power to extend that period in this case. (¶¶ 5–13, 16–18, 20)
Held
- When the applicable period expired, the accused acquired an enforceable right to release for investigative default if prepared to furnish bail. A court had to address an application invoking that right promptly so that delay could not frustrate the statutory safeguard. (¶¶ 10–11, 16–17)
- The report tendered on 5 July 2018 had been returned because it did not comply with the High Court’s order concerning investigation by a sufficiently senior gazetted officer. On expiry of ninety days, no charge-sheet or investigation papers remained before the Magistrate for assessing further custody. On these actual circumstances, the earlier tender did not defeat default bail. (¶¶ 5–8, 12–13, 18)
- The Code did not empower a court to extend the relevant period. Special enactments could provide otherwise, but no such provision applied here. In any event, the earlier High Court order merely recorded the prosecutor’s assurance of completion within two months; it did not amount to an extension. The accused had applied and shown willingness to furnish bail, so their right had accrued. (¶ 18)
- The appeal was allowed and the matter directed to be placed immediately before the trial court to admit the appellants to bail on appropriate conditions. Default bail did not prohibit arrest or re-arrest on cogent grounds; in that event, an application for regular bail would be considered on its merits. (¶ 19–21)
Result
Appeal allowed; appellants entitled to default bail on trial-court conditions, with immediate placement before that court. Arrest or re-arrest on cogent grounds remains permissible, with liberty to seek regular bail.