9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1105 - SC - Indian LawsCancellation of Bail granted - filing of an additional complaint by the investigating agency - Whether the indefeasible right accruing to the appellant under Section 167(2), CrPC gets extinguished by subsequent filing of an additional complaint by the investigating agency? - Whether the Court should take into consideration the time of filing of the application for bail, based on default of the investigating agency or the time of disposal of the application for bail? HELD THAT - Admittedly the Appellant-accused had exercised his option to obtain bail by filing the application at 10 30 a.m. on the 181st day of his arrest, i.e., immediately after the court opened, on 01.02.2019. It is not in dispute that the Public Prosecutor had not filed any application seeking extension of time to investigate into the crime prior to 31.01.2019 or prior to 10 30 a.m. on 01.02.2019. The Public Prosecutor participated in the arguments on the bail application till 4 25 p.m. on the day it was filed. It was only thereafter that the additional complaint came to be lodged against the Appellant - the Appellant-accused was deemed to have availed of his indefeasible right to bail, the moment he filed an application for being released on bail and offered to abide by the terms and conditions of the bail order, i.e. at 10 30 a.m. on 01.02.2019. He was entitled to be released on bail notwithstanding the subsequent filing of an additional complaint. It is clear that in the case on hand, the State/the investigating agency has, in order to defeat the indefeasible right of the accused to be released on bail, filed an additional complaint before the concerned court subsequent to the conclusion of the arguments of the Appellant on the bail application. If such a practice is allowed, the right under Section 167(2) would be rendered nugatory as the investigating officers could drag their heels till the time the accused exercises his right and conveniently files an additional complaint including the name of the accused as soon as the application for bail is taken up for disposal. Such complaint may be on flimsy grounds or motivated merely to keep the accused detained in custody, though we refrain from commenting on the merits of the additional complaint in the present case. Irrespective of the seriousness of the offence and the reliability of the evidence available, filing additional complaints merely to circumvent the application for default bail is, in our view, an improper strategy - the High Court was not justified in setting aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court releasing the accused on default bail. The High Court has wrongly entered into merits of the matter while coming to the conclusion. The reasons assigned and the conclusions arrived at by the High Court are unacceptable. Once the accused files an application for bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) he is deemed to have availed of or enforced his right to be released on default bail, accruing after expiry of the stipulated time limit for investigation. Thus, if the accused applies for bail under Section 167(2), CrPC read with Section 36A (4), NDPS Act upon expiry of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, the Court must release him on bail forthwith without any unnecessary delay after getting necessary information from the public prosecutor, as mentioned supra. Such prompt action will restrict the prosecution from frustrating the legislative mandate to release the accused on bail in case of default by the investigative agency - right to be released on default bail continues to remain enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the bail application; or subsequent filing of the chargesheet or a report seeking extension of time by the prosecution before the Court; or filing of the chargesheet during the interregnum when challenge to the rejection of the bail application is pending before a higher Court. The impugned judgment of the High Court stands set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. 2. Impact of subsequent filing of additional complaint on the right to default bail. 3. Interpretation and application of Section 167(2) CrPC and Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. 4. Judicial precedents and their relevance to the right to default bail. 5. Procedural fairness and the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: I. Indefeasible Right to Default Bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an indefeasible right that accrues to the accused if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period. This right is triggered as soon as the accused files an application for bail and offers to furnish bail. The Court emphasized that this right cannot be defeated by subsequent filing of a chargesheet or additional complaint by the prosecution. II. Impact of Subsequent Filing of Additional Complaint on the Right to Default Bail: The Court held that the subsequent filing of an additional complaint by the prosecution does not extinguish the accused's right to default bail if the application for bail was filed before the chargesheet or additional complaint. The Court clarified that the accused's right to default bail is deemed to be availed of as soon as the application is filed, and any delay in the disposal of the application by the Court does not affect this right. III. Interpretation and Application of Section 167(2) CrPC and Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act: The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 167(2) CrPC and Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, highlighting that the investigation must be completed within 180 days for certain offences under the NDPS Act. The Court noted that the Public Prosecutor had not filed any report seeking an extension of time within the 180-day period, and therefore, the appellant's right to default bail had accrued. IV. Judicial Precedents and Their Relevance to the Right to Default Bail: The Court referred to several precedents, including Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, and others, to elucidate the principles governing the right to default bail. The Court reiterated that the right to default bail is enforceable from the time the application is filed and cannot be nullified by the subsequent filing of a chargesheet or additional complaint. V. Procedural Fairness and the Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution: The Court emphasized that the right to default bail is intrinsically linked to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court underscored that any interpretation of Section 167(2) CrPC must align with the constitutional mandate to protect personal liberty and ensure that no person is detained arbitrarily or unlawfully. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and confirmed the Trial Court's order granting default bail to the appellant. The Court directed that the appellant should surrender his passport, report to the Respondent Directorate when required, and not leave Chennai city limits without the Trial Court's permission. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
|
