2017 (4) TMI 136 - HC - Customs

Entitlement for bail - Whether the bail order passed in favor of an accused under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167of the Code stands extinguished and/or cancelled automatically on the mere filing of the charge-sheet/complaint, if the accused, by that time has not actually been released from custody? - Held that - a bail granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) of Code is, though termed as bail on default is as effective as bail granted on merits, and does not get cancelled automatically on completion of investigation or charge-sheet being filed - When the Supreme Court of India has time and again said that mere making of an application for bail would amount to availing of the right accrued to an accused under the said proviso irrespective of whether the Court has actually passed a bail order or not, there was no question of refusing to release the petitioner on bail when an order for bail had actually been passed - bail granted - revision allowed - decided in favor of revisionist-petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of bail order under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Effect of filing charge-sheet/complaint on bail order.
3. Judicial error in understanding relevant provisions of law.
4. Application of legal principles in the context of bail orders.
5. Unreasonable delay in the release process and conditions of bail.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the bail order granted under the First proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the 'Code'). The petitioner sought relief from the High Court after the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to release him on bail, deeming the earlier bail order ineffective due to a subsequent complaint filed before the petitioner's release.

2. The key issue addressed was the effect of filing a charge-sheet or complaint on a bail order under Section 167(2) of the Code. The High Court clarified that a bail granted under this provision remains effective and does not automatically get cancelled upon the filing of a charge-sheet/complaint, especially if the accused has not been released from custody at that time.

3. The High Court highlighted the judicial error made by the Magistrate in misinterpreting the relevant provisions of law. It emphasized that a bail granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code is as effective as bail granted on merits and does not extinguish merely upon the filing of a charge-sheet/complaint.

4. The judgment delves into the application of legal principles in the context of bail orders, citing previous decisions by the Apex Court. It clarified that the right of an accused to be released on bail under the said proviso accrues upon making an application for bail, and the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet does not extinguish this right, regardless of whether the accused has been released from custody.

5. Lastly, the High Court criticized the unreasonable delay in the release process and the conditions of bail imposed by the Magistrate. The Court noted that the Magistrate's actions were unjust and improper, causing undue hardship to the petitioner. The judgment allowed the revision application, setting aside the impugned order and reviving the original bail order passed by the Magistrate and modified by the Court of Sessions.