Summary
Two accused remanded on 14 May 2020 in a money-laundering case applied for default bail at 8.53 am on 13 July 2020, the Enforcement Directorate filing its complaint later that morning. The Special Court refused bail by excluding the date of remand from the sixty days, but the Bombay High Court granted it. On a reference arising from conflicting decisions, a three-Judge Bench held that the sixty or ninety day period under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) CrPC is computed from and includes the day the Magistrate authorises remand; that Rustam, which excluded that day, was per incuriam for ignoring Chaganti Satyanarayan; that the General Clauses Act does not apply since Section 167 fixes no period from and to; that the indefeasible right to default bail is not defeated by a later chargesheet; and it upheld the grant of bail.
Issues
- Whether, in computing the sixty or ninety day period under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the purpose of default bail, the day on which the Magistrate orders remand is to be included or excluded.
- Whether Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 apply to the computation of the remand period under Section 167(2).
Provisions considered
- Section 167(2), proviso (a), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The period of authorised detention runs from the very day of the remand order; the stipulated sixty or ninety days are computed including that day, and where the chargesheet is filed on or after the sixty-first or ninety-first day the accused is entitled to default bail. (¶¶ 22, 23, 34, 36, 50)
- Sections 9 and 10, General Clauses Act, 1897Inapplicable to Section 167, which is a complete code with no period delimited by a from and to, no limitation for completing investigation, and a remand period that varies with the hour of the remand order; the holiday extension in Section 10 therefore does not save a chargesheet filed on the day after the period expired. (¶¶ 26, 34, 35, 48)
- Section 57, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An arrested person must be produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours; custody before production is not detention under a remand order, so excluding the remand day would create a legal vacuum in which custody is counted under neither provision. (¶¶ 21, 34, 36)
- Articles 21 and 22(2), Constitution of IndiaThe right to default bail is part of the procedure established by law and a fundamental right; any ambiguity in Section 167 must be resolved in favour of the accused's personal liberty. (¶¶ 38, 40, 41, 43, 48)
Held
- Chaganti Satyanarayan held that the sixty or ninety days in proviso (a) are reckoned from the date of remand on the plain language of the proviso without recourse to the General Clauses Act or Limitation Act; Rustam, which excluded the date of remand by invoking Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act, ignored that binding precedent and is per incuriam, so Ravi Prakash Singh and M. Ravindran, which followed Rustam on this point, do not state the correct law, while Mohd. Ashraft Bhat, Pragyna Singh Thakur and Gautam Navlakha correctly include the day of remand. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33)
- Section 167 prescribes no beginning and end for completion of investigation; production before the Magistrate is a continuation of the arrest and detention under magisterial authority begins on the day of the remand order, so the General Clauses Act cannot apply. Including the remand day means the prosecution's period varies with the hour of remand, which encourages prompt compliance with Section 57, and the lacuna in the law must be read in favour of personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22(2). (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 48, 49)
- The moment the stipulated period expires an indefeasible right to default bail accrues; it is not extinguished by a chargesheet filed afterwards if the accused has availed of the right before filing. Here remand was on 14 May 2020, the sixtieth day was 12 July 2020, the applications were filed at 8.53 am on 13 July 2020 and the complaint only at 11.15 am that day, so the accused were entitled to default bail. (¶¶ 37, 38, 42, 50)
Result
Reference answered: the sixty or ninety day remand period under Section 167(2) CrPC is computed from and includes the date on which the Magistrate authorises remand; Bombay High Court judgment dated 20.08.2020 granting default bail to the respondents under proviso (a)(ii) to Section 167(2) upheld; other pending issues in the appeals left to an appropriate Bench.