2013 (2) TMI 821 - SC - Indian Laws

Right of an accused to be released on bail while procedure of remand under Crpc - Despite charge-sheet have been filled within the period sanction had not been obtained to prosecute the accused and to proceed - No Cognizance has been taken on the basis thereof - HELD THAT - the filing of charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii). Whether cognizance is taken or not is not material as far as Section 167 Cr.P.C. is concerned. Merely because sanction had not been obtained to prosecute the accused and to proceed to the stage of Section 309 Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that the accused is entitled to grant of statutory bail as envisaged in Section 167 Cr.P.C. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is such that once the investigation stage is completed the Court proceeds to the next stage which is the taking of cognizance and trial. An accused has to remain in custody of some court.

Issues Involved:
1. Right of an accused to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
2. Power of the Magistrate to pass orders of remand beyond the period envisaged under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Impact of non-obtaining of sanction to prosecute the accused on the right to bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Right of an Accused to be Released on Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:
The judgment addresses the right of an accused to be released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., which stipulates that if the investigation is not completed within 90 days for serious offenses, the accused is entitled to bail if they are prepared to furnish it. The court clarified that this right is "indefeasible" and arises when the statutory period lapses without the filing of a charge-sheet. However, once the charge-sheet is filed, this right ceases to exist, and any bail application must be considered on its merits.

2. Power of the Magistrate to Pass Orders of Remand Beyond the Period Envisaged Under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:
The court examined whether the Magistrate could continue to pass remand orders after the statutory period of 90 days had lapsed without taking cognizance due to the absence of sanction for prosecution. The court held that the Magistrate's power to remand an accused is initially governed by Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., which allows for remand up to 90 days for serious offenses. After this period, if the investigation is incomplete, the accused should be released on bail. However, if the charge-sheet is filed within this period, the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. take over, allowing for remand during the trial process.

3. Impact of Non-Obtaining of Sanction to Prosecute the Accused on the Right to Bail:
The court discussed the significance of obtaining sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). It was argued that since the sanction had not been obtained, no cognizance could be taken, and thus the accused should be entitled to bail. The court clarified that the requirement of sanction is separate from the investigation process governed by Section 167 Cr.P.C. The filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period satisfies the requirements of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., irrespective of whether sanction to prosecute has been obtained. Consequently, the failure to obtain sanction does not entitle the accused to statutory bail.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the accused was not entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. since the charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated period. The requirement of sanction for prosecution under the PC Act does not impact the compliance with Section 167 Cr.P.C., which is solely concerned with the completion of the investigation within the prescribed period. The court emphasized the distinction between the investigation stage and the trial stage, governed by Sections 167 and 309 Cr.P.C., respectively, ensuring the continuity of the accused's custody with the court throughout the process.

← Previous Next →