Summary
The Supreme Court granted default bail where the charge sheet concerning UAPA offences was filed after the extended 180-day period and after the accused had applied for bail. An earlier charge sheet covering IPC and Arms Act offences did not permit the State to evade the time limit by describing the later UAPA charge sheet as supplementary. Default bail, once its statutory conditions are fulfilled, forms part of the constitutional protection of personal liberty.
Issues
- Whether an earlier charge sheet for other offences defeated default bail when the UAPA charge sheet followed expiry of 180 days and the bail application.
Provisions considered
- Section 167(2), first proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused acquired a right to default bail when the extended period expired without a UAPA charge sheet and he applied before that charge sheet was filed. (¶ 10-14)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaDefault bail on fulfilment of the statutory conditions was treated as part of the procedure established by law protecting liberty. (¶ 12-13)
Held
- The UAPA charge sheet was filed after 211 days and two days after the default bail application. The State could not circumvent the prescribed period by relying on an earlier charge sheet for other offences and calling the later filing supplementary. (¶¶ 3-4, 10-11)
- Default bail under the first proviso to Section 167(2) is a constitutional protection as well as a statutory entitlement once its conditions are met; an oral application can suffice. (¶ 12-13)
- The objection to the Magistrate granting the extended period was not accepted on the circumstances stated concerning absence of notified special courts in Uttar Pradesh. Bail was granted on the independent ground of expiry of the extended period. (¶¶ 5-9, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned orders set aside and default bail granted on terms satisfactory to the trial court. Parties to bear their own costs.