9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1429 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Default Bail - sexual assault - chargesheet has been filed, but cognizance has not been taken by the Court of the offences - Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. provides an indefeasible right to statutory bail to an accused when investigation cannot be completed within the stipulated period of sixty or ninety described, prescribed in the provision. The rationale behind this provision is to ensure that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India remains preserved. However, once chargesheet has been filed, albeit within the prescribed period, this statutory right to bail of the accused stands extinguished. In Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain 2013 (2) TMI 821 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court had in detail considered the question as to whether cognizance of the chargesheet was necessary to prevent the accused from seeking default bail or whether mere filing of the chargesheet would suffice for the investigation to be deemed complete - SC cements the position that once a chargesheet has been filed within the stipulated time, the question of grant of statutory bail or default does not arise. The issue being discussed herein has further been laid to rest in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi 2022 (2) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Supreme Court has comprehensively dealt with multiple decisions pertaining to whether filing of the chargesheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C. and whether the accused can demand release on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of the stipulated period - It was held that the indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. arises only if the chargesheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. In the instant case, the Petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2021. Chargesheet was filed on 14.10.2021, i.e. within the period prescribed by the statutory provision. The material on record indicates that cognizance had not been taken by the Ld. Trial Court on the ground that certain clarifications were required with respect to an FSL report which was pending as well as a video recording of the offences allegedly being committed that had been mentioned by the victim child in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. On 16.12.2021, the Investigating Officer had informed the Ld. Trial Court that further investigation would be conducted and that a supplementary chargesheet would be filed in that regard - it would be pertinent to note that the Petitioner can be convicted on the basis of the testimony of the victim, and the video recording can be collected and filed by way of a supplementary chargesheet and that filing of a chargesheet would entail completion of investigation and that the right to default bail under Section 167 (2) CrPC would not survive. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. when chargesheet has been filed but cognizance has not been taken by the Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Entitlement to Default Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.: The primary issue before the Court was whether the Petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. despite the chargesheet being filed within the prescribed period, but without the Court taking cognizance of the offences. Facts of the Case: - The victim child, aged 13, was allegedly sexually assaulted by 2-3 boys in the neighborhood. The incident was reported by the victim's mother to the police, leading to the registration of FIR No. 312/2021 under Sections 377/34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. - The Petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2021 and remanded to judicial custody, which was extended multiple times. The regular bail application was dismissed on 29.09.2021. - The Petitioner filed a second bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that cognizance of the offences had not been taken by the Trial Court, despite the chargesheet being filed on 14.10.2021. Arguments by the Petitioner: - The Petitioner argued that under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period and the chargesheet is not filed, the accused has a statutory right to bail. - It was contended that the chargesheet filed was incomplete, as the statement of the child victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. mentioned a video recording, prompting the Trial Court to issue notice without taking cognizance. - The Petitioner cited Supreme Court judgments, including M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, and Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, to argue that the right to default bail accrues if cognizance is not taken within the statutory period. Arguments by the Respondent: - The State opposed the bail application, asserting that the filing of the chargesheet within the stipulated period extinguishes the right to default bail, regardless of whether cognizance has been taken. Court's Analysis: - The Court examined Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., which provides an indefeasible right to statutory bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period. - The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, which clarified that the filing of the chargesheet within the stipulated time suffices for compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and the right to default bail does not arise once the chargesheet is filed, irrespective of cognizance. - The Court also cited Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, which reiterated that the right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. arises only if the chargesheet is not filed within the statutory period. Conclusion: - The Court concluded that the Petitioner was not entitled to default bail as the chargesheet was filed within the prescribed period, and the requirement of cognizance being taken is immaterial for compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - The petition was dismissed, affirming that the filing of the chargesheet within the stipulated time extinguishes the right to default bail. Order: - The petition for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed, along with any pending applications. This comprehensive analysis covers the legal reasoning and significant phrases from the original judgment, ensuring a thorough understanding of the issues involved and the Court's decision.
|
