9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1249 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of default bail/statutory bail - condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court, valid or not - HELD THAT - The High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of ₹ 8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking into consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular bail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit ₹ 7,00,000/-. The only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. - reliance placed in the case of RAKESH KUMAR PAUL VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM 2017 (8) TMI 1526 - SUPREME COURT . Direction to appellant to report before the concerned police station daily at 10 00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation - HELD THAT - The same is also unsustainable, as it is too harsh. Instead, condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on breach of such condition. The direction to appellant to deposit ₹ 8,00,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, while releasing the appellant on default bail, is hereby quashed and set aside - the appellant shall co-operate with the investigating agency and shall report the concerned police station as and when called for investigation/interrogation and on non-cooperation, the consequences including cancellation of the bail shall follow - appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Imposition of conditions for default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. 2. Validity of conditions imposed by the High Court while releasing the appellant on bail. 3. Interpretation of the scheme of Section 167 Cr.P.C. 4. Justifiability of directing the appellant to deposit a specific amount as a condition for bail. 5. Legality of directing the appellant to report to the police station daily for interrogation. Analysis: Issue 1: Imposition of conditions for default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. The appellant challenged the conditions imposed for default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. The High Court had directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount before the Judicial Magistrate. The appellant argued that such conditions were contrary to the scheme of Section 167 and infringed upon personal liberty. The Supreme Court held that imposing deposit conditions for default bail/statutory bail would defeat the purpose of the provision, which entitles the accused to bail if investigation is not completed within the stipulated time. The Court emphasized that the only requirement for default bail is the expiry of the statutory period and the accused's willingness to furnish bail. Issue 2: Validity of conditions imposed by the High Court while releasing the appellant on bail The High Court had imposed conditions based on the appellant's previous bail application and an affidavit filed by the appellant's wife. The Supreme Court ruled that conditions set during regular bail applications should not influence conditions for default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the purpose of default bail is to safeguard personal liberty when investigation deadlines are not met, and any additional conditions beyond statutory requirements are unjustified. Issue 3: Interpretation of the scheme of Section 167 Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated that Section 167 Cr.P.C. upholds personal liberty by providing default bail when investigation deadlines are breached. The Court emphasized that the accused is entitled to default bail once the statutory period lapses and no chargesheet is filed, without the need for additional conditions like depositing specific amounts. Issue 4: Justifiability of directing the appellant to deposit a specific amount as a condition for bail The Court found that directing the appellant to deposit a specific amount while granting default bail was unsustainable and against the principles of Section 167. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on statutory requirements, not financial obligations, for default bail eligibility. Issue 5: Legality of directing the appellant to report to the police station daily for interrogation The Court deemed the condition directing the appellant to report daily for interrogation too harsh and modified it. Instead, the Court directed the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer and appear for interrogation when required, with non-cooperation potentially leading to bail cancellation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the deposit condition for bail, and modified the reporting condition, emphasizing the primacy of personal liberty and statutory bail provisions under Section 167 Cr.P.C.
|
