Summary
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the conflict over whether the first remand day is included when calculating the investigation period for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. It identified divergent precedent, including a recent three-judge decision that had not considered earlier authorities. The merits of the counting rule were left unresolved. The respondents’ request for interim benefit of the stayed High Court bail order was also directed to be placed before a three-judge Bench.
Issues
- Whether the first day of remand is included or excluded in calculating the sixty- or ninety-day period relevant to default bail.
Held
- Conflicting decisions on counting the remand day created uncertainty requiring authoritative resolution. The Court did not adopt either rule in this order. (¶ 3-9)
- The Registry was directed to place the relevant documents before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Bench of at least three judges. (¶ 10)
- The request for interim benefit of the High Court’s default-bail order, which had been stayed, was to be listed before a three-judge Bench on a near date. No interim bail was granted by this order. (¶¶ 2, 11)
Result
Counting issue referred to a larger Bench; papers to be placed before the Chief Justice. Interim prayer separately directed to a three-judge Bench.