2021 (2) TMI 1283 - SC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of default bail - inclusion of days of remand or not - whether while computing the period of 90 days or 60 days as contemplated in Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) of the CrPC the day of remand is to be included or excluded for considering a claim for default bail? HELD THAT - The moot question has been considered by this Court in various matters but there is divergence of opinion on how the period available for completing the investigation is to be computed. Some judgements have favoured the exclusion of date of remand while few other cases have taken a contrary view. The appellants rely inter alia on the line of reasoning in RAVI PRAKASH SINGH VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR 2015 (2) TMI 1371 - SUPREME COURT and M. RAVINDRAN VERSUS THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE 2020 (10) TMI 1105 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the date of remand is to be excluded for computing the permitted period for completion of investigation - On the other hand the Respondents seek to rely inter alia on CHAGANTI SATYANARAYAN VERSUS STATE OF AP. 1986 (5) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CELL-I VERSUS ANUPAM J. KULKARNI 1992 (5) TMI 191 - SUPREME COURT STATE THROUGH CBI VERSUS MOHD. ASHRAFT BHAT ANR. 1995 (12) TMI 389 - SUPREME COURT STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS MRS. BHARATI CHANDMAL VARMA @ AYESHA KHAN 2001 (12) TMI 876 - SUPREME COURT and SADHWI PRAGYNA SINGH THAKUR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2011 (9) TMI 1078 - SUPREME COURT to contend that the date of remand must be included for computing the available period for investigation for determining entitlement to default bail. Because of the conflicting view on the proposition of law for grant of default bail a judicial conundrum has arisen which is required to be resolved for guidance of the Court. In Chaganti the Court examined the legislative intent for expeditious conclusion of investigation and the consequences of the failure of the prosecution to conclude investigation within the permitted period. However the ratio in Chaganti and also in Mhd. Ashraft Bhat Supra was not brought to the notice of the 3 judges bench in M Ravindran and the Court took a contrary view in declaring that the date of remand is to be excluded for computing the period of investigation to facilitate the claim of default bail by an accused. Since the earlier position of law was not considered and the latest decision is of a 3 judges bench it is necessary for a bench of appropriate strength to settle the law taking note of the earlier precedents. Unless the issue is appropriately determined the courts across the country may take decision on the issue depending upon which judgement is brought to the Court s notice or on the Courts own understanding of the law covering default bail under Section 167 (2)(a) II of CrPC. As the respondents are praying for benefit of the High Court s bail order which was stayed on 3.9.2020 this matter be placed before a bench of 3 judges on a near date for consideration of the interim prayer for the respondents.

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of period for default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of CrPC.
2. Divergence of opinion on including or excluding the day of remand in computing the period for default bail entitlement.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of computing the period for default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of CrPC in an appeal against the Bombay High Court's order granting default bail to the respondents. The High Court held that excluding the first date of remand while computing the 60-day period was erroneous, entitling the respondents to default bail based on the filing of the Charge Sheet by the Enforcement Directorate on the 61st day. The core question was whether the day of remand should be included or excluded in calculating the period for default bail.

2. The Court noted a divergence of opinion on this issue in various judgments. The appellants relied on precedents favoring the exclusion of the date of remand, such as State of M.P. Vs. Rustom & Ors. and Ravi Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar, while the respondents cited cases like Chaganti Satyanarayan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and State Vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat to argue for including the date of remand in the computation of the investigation period for default bail entitlement.

3. Due to conflicting views on the grant of default bail, the Court recognized the need to resolve this judicial conundrum for the guidance of the judiciary. The Court highlighted the importance of determining the legislative intent for expeditious investigation completion and the consequences of prosecution failure to conclude the investigation within the stipulated period.

4. Considering the conflicting precedents and the necessity for a uniform application of the law, the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. The Court directed the Registry to present all relevant documents before the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of at least three judges to settle the conflicting views on the grant of default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of CrPC.

5. Pending the authoritative pronouncement, the Court decided to place the matter before a bench of three judges for consideration of the respondents' interim prayer for the benefit of the High Court's bail order, which was stayed earlier. This step aimed to address the respondents' plea while awaiting the resolution of the conflict in law regarding default bail entitlement.