scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeJudiciaryAccused entitled to ‘default bail’ if probe not completed within prescribed time,...

Accused entitled to ‘default bail’ if probe not completed within prescribed time, SC says

A 3-judge SC bench has said the right to 'default bail' is linked to Article 21 that promises protection of life and personal liberty against unlawful detention.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

New Delhi: An accused should be granted ‘default bail’, irrespective of the merits of the case, if the investigating agency does not complete its probe within the prescribed time limit, the Supreme Court held in a judgment.

A three-judge bench comprising Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice M.M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Vineet Saran noted that Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided a “clear mandate” that the investigative agency must collect the required evidence within the prescribed time period, failing which the accused can no longer be detained.

Under Section 167(2), an accused can be detained in custody for a maximum of 90 days for a crime punishable with death, life imprisonment or a sentence of over 10 years. If the investigation relates to any other offence, the accused can be detained for 60 days.

In some special statutes such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the period of detention can extend to 180 days.

If the investigative agencies do not complete their investigation within these time limits, the arrested person is entitled to ‘default bail’.

In the judgment delivered on 26 October, the bench also said Section 167(2) is “integrally linked to the constitutional commitment under Article 21 promising protection of life and personal liberty against unlawful and arbitrary detention, and must be interpreted in a manner which serves this purpose”.

The court was hearing a petition filed by one M. Ravindran, who was arrested in August 2018 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. He was remanded in judicial custody on the day he was arrested.

He approached the trial court for default bail, 180 days from the remand date, contending that the investigation was not complete and that the charge sheet had not been filed yet.

While the trial court granted Ravindran bail, the Madras High Court cancelled it in November 2019, on the ground that the prosecution filed an additional complaint against him even as his bail plea was being heard. The high court order was then challenged in the Supreme Court.


Also read: Police book 1 man in 10 Delhi riots cases with 3 cops as witnesses in all, court gives bail


‘Indefeasible right’

The 56-page SC judgment said this ‘default bail’ will also compel the investigating officers to act swiftly and efficiently without misusing the prospect of further remand.

“This also ensures that the Court takes cognizance of the case without any undue delay from the date of giving information of the offence, so that society at large does not lose faith and develop cynicism towards the criminal justice system,” it observed.

The Supreme Court took note of several precedents, as well as Law Commission of India reports on the subject.

It then highlighted the purpose behind Section 167(2), saying the intent was to “balance the need for sufficient time limits to complete the investigation with the need to protect the civil liberties of the accused”.

The court referred to its 2001 judgment, in which another apex court bench had referred to default bail as an “indefeasible right”.

The SC had then ruled that the accused is “deemed to have exercised his right to default bail under Section 167(2), CrPC the moment he files the application for bail and offers to abide by the terms and conditions of bail”.

As a cautionary measure, the court said, the lawyer for the accused as well as the magistrate should inform the accused of this right once he becomes entitled to him.

“This is especially where the accused is from an underprivileged section of society and is unlikely to have access to information about his legal rights,” the bench observed.


Also read: Belated FIRs, planted witnesses — a look at Justice Kait’s bail orders in Delhi riots cases


‘Right extinguishes if accused does not exercise it’

The Supreme Court asserted that once an accused files an application for default bail, he is “deemed to have availed of or enforced his right to be released on default bail”.

It ruled that this right continues to remain enforceable even if, while the bail application is pending, a chargesheet or an application for extension of time is filed.

But the actual release of an accused from custody depends on the directions passed by the court granting bail. So if the accused fails to furnish bail or comply with the terms and conditions of the bail order, his detention would continue, according to the judgment.

It added that if the accused fails to apply for default bail when the right accrues to him, and subsequently a chargesheet or an extension report is filed then “the right to default bail would be extinguished”.

For Ravindran’s case, the court took note of the provisions of the NDPS Act, which allow the investigating agency 180 days to complete the probe.

According to the Act, this period can be extended to one year by a special court, if the public prosecutor submits a report mentioning the progress of the probe and specific reasons for the extension.

The court noted that in the case at hand the public prosecutor had not filed any such report within the 180-day period for an extension. Therefore, in Ravindran’s case, the final report was to be filed by the authorities within 180 days, it said.

The court then asserted that “the prosecution cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own default of not filing the investigation report or complaint against the appellant within the stipulated period”.

It, therefore, set aside the High Court order and granted bail to the accused.


Also read: Media’s ‘duty to publish news, comment’ — HC quashes defamation case against Malayala Manorama


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular