Summary
An accused arrested on 29 January 2022 sought default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on the ground that the first extension of the investigation period, granted on 22 April 2022 within the initial ninety days, was passed in his absence and was therefore no extension in law. He had been informed of the extension the next day, did not challenge it, filed the bail application on 10 May 2022 without disclosing it, and was present when a second extension was granted on 22 May 2022, within which the chargesheet was filed. The Supreme Court held that under Sanjay Dutt and Jigar the accused must be given notice of or be present at the hearing of an extension application, but that on these facts, with two unchallenged extensions subsisting when bail was sought and the chargesheet filed within the extended period, no indefeasible right to default bail arose.
Issues
- Whether an accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC where the first extension of time for investigation was granted in his absence, but he was informed of it the next day, did not challenge it, and a second extension was granted in his presence.
Provisions considered
- Section 167(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The right to default bail arises on expiry of the prescribed period without a chargesheet; where extensions granted by the court subsisted and were unchallenged when the bail application was filed, and the chargesheet was filed within the extended period, the right did not accrue. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.5, 7)
- Section 167 (extension of investigation period on the investigating agency's report), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Following the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt and the later decision in Jigar, the accused need not be given written notice with reasons but must be kept present or notified so that he knows an extension is sought and granted; extension is subject to the court's satisfaction on the grounds stated. (¶¶ 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.4)
Held
- The view in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur that written notice must be given to the accused to oppose an extension was not accepted by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt; the requirement is that the accused be kept present or given notice so that he knows of the extension, as reiterated in Jigar. Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi, concerning a retrospective extension after the earlier one was set aside, and Rambeer Shokeen, concerning a pending extension application, are distinguishable. (¶¶ 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.3, 6.4)
- Though the accused was not present when the first extension was granted within the ninety days, he was informed of it the next day, made no challenge, did not disclose it in his default bail application filed while that extension was in force, and was present when the second extension was granted, which he also did not challenge; the chargesheet having been filed within the extended period, he is not entitled to default bail in these peculiar facts. (¶¶ 6.5, 7)
Result
Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment dated 23.09.2022 refusing statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC affirmed; liberty to the accused to apply for regular bail to be considered on its own merits.