9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 403 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - time limitation - whether an accused is entitled for statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, from the date of remand? - HELD THAT - It is clear from the judgment of this Court in Bhikamchand Jain 2013 (2) TMI 821 - SUPREME COURT that filing of a charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167, CrPC and that an accused cannot demand release on default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days. The accused continues to be in the custody of the Magistrate till such time cognizance is taken by the court trying the offence, which assumes custody of the accused for the purpose of remand after cognizance is taken. The conclusion of the High Court that the accused cannot be remanded beyond the period of 60 days under Section 167 and that further remand could only be at the post-cognizance stage, is not correct in view of the judgment of this Court in Bhikamchand Jain. The point that requires to be considered is whether this Court has taken a different view in Sanjay Dutt 1994 (9) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT , Madar Sheikh (supra) and M. Ravindran 2020 (10) TMI 1105 - SUPREME COURT . In Sanjay Dutt, this Court held that the indefeasible right accruing to the accused is enforceable only prior to the filing of challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable, on the challan being filed. It was made clear that once the challan has been filed, the question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only with reference to the merits of the case under the provisions relating to grant of bail to an accused after the filing of the challan - In Madar Sheikh 1996 (1) TMI 429 - SUPREME COURT , which was relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the Intervenor, the appellants therein were taken into custody on 16.01.1993. The charge-sheet was submitted on 30.08.1993. Though the appellants were entitled to be released in view of the charge-sheet not being filed within the statutory period prescribed under Section 20(4)(b) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with proviso (a) to Section 167(2), CrPC, they did not make an application for release on bail on the ground of default in completion of the investigation within the statutory period. After filing of the charge-sheet and cognizance having been taken, they continued to be in custody on the basis of orders of remand passed under other provisions of the CrPC. Refusing to grant relief of statutory bail in the said fact situation, this Court held that the right conferred on an accused under Section 167(2) cannot be exercised after the charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. This Court observed that no prior application for bail was filed in Madar Sheikh though the charge-sheet was submitted after the expiry of the statutory period. This Court repeated the findings recorded in Madar Sheikh that the right to bail cannot be exercised once the charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. As stated above, the said conclusion in Madar Sheikh was arrived at with reference to the facts of the case - A close scrutiny of the judgments in Sanjay Dutt, Madar Sheikh and M. Ravindran would show that there is nothing contrary to what has been decided in Bhikamchand Jain - In all the above judgments which are relied upon by either side, this Court had categorically laid down that the indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC arises only if the charge-sheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. As the issue that arises for consideration in this case is squarely covered by the judgment in Bhikamchand Jain - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. 2. Requirement of cognizance before the expiry of the statutory period for statutory bail. 3. Interpretation of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC: The primary issue in this case was whether the accused were entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC on the ground that cognizance had not been taken before the expiry of the statutory period. The Supreme Court clarified that the filing of a charge-sheet within the stipulated period is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167(2), CrPC. The Court held that the right to statutory bail arises only if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period, and the charge-sheet is not filed. This conclusion is consistent with the judgment in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that once the charge-sheet is filed within the stipulated period, the accused's right to statutory bail ceases. 2. Requirement of cognizance before the expiry of the statutory period for statutory bail: The High Court had granted bail to the accused on the ground that cognizance had not been taken before the expiry of the 60-day period. The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, stating that the filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period is sufficient, and taking cognizance is not a requirement under Section 167(2), CrPC. The Court emphasized that the accused remains in custody of the Magistrate until cognizance is taken by the relevant court, thereby maintaining continuity of custody. 3. Interpretation of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the CrPC: The Supreme Court examined various judgments, including Sanjay Dutt v. State, Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, and M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, to address the interpretation of Section 167(2), CrPC. The Court noted that the indefeasible right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) arises only if the charge-sheet is not filed within the statutory period. The reference to cognizance in Madar Sheikh was specific to the facts of that case and should not be construed as introducing an additional requirement. The Court concluded that there is no conflict in the interpretation of Section 167(2) across the cited judgments, and the principle established in Bhikamchand Jain remains valid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail, reaffirming that the filing of a charge-sheet within the statutory period suffices for compliance under Section 167(2), CrPC, and cognizance need not be taken within that period. The Appeals were allowed, and the accused were not entitled to statutory bail based on the grounds argued.
|
