2023 (10) TMI 1295 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Default bail - chargesheet or a prosecution complaint be filed in piecemeal without first completing the investigation of the case or not? - filing of such a chargesheet without completing the investigation will extinguish the right of an accused for grant of default bail or not - remand of an accused can be continued by the trial court during the pendency of investigation beyond the stipulated time as prescribed by the CrPC - HELD THAT - It pertinent to mention that in the present case, this Court is not dealing with the merits of the case and as such is not inclined to make any observations regarding the same. Every court, when invoked to exercise its powers, must be mindful of the relief sought, and must act as a forum confined to such relief. In the present case at hand, this Court is not a court of appeal, but a court of writ, and therefore is inclined to limit its jurisdiction only to the personal liberty of the writ petitioner s husband and the impugned points of law. Under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which was the Act that governed criminal procedure before the enactment of CrPC presently in force, an accused, either under judicial or police custody, could be remanded only for a maximum period of 15 days. Reliance placed in SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANR. 2021 (10) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it was held that Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a limb of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, the investigating authority is under a constitutional duty to expedite the process of investigation within the stipulated time, failing which, the accused is entitled to be released on default bail. It is also to be noted that as per the scheme of Cr.PC, an investigation of a cognizable case commences with the recording of an FIR under Section 154 Cr.PC. If a person is arrested and the investigation of the case cannot be completed within 24 hours, he has to be produced before the magistrate to seek his remand under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC during continued investigation. There is a statutory time frame then prescribed for remand of the accused for the purposes of investigation, however, the same cannot extend beyond 90 days, as provided under Section 167(2)(a) (i) in cases where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years and 60 days, as provided under Section 167(2)(a)(ii), where the investigation relates to any other offence. Without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC - Such a chargesheet, if filed by an investigating authority without first completing the investigation, would not extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. In the instant case, it is clear from the facts that during the pendency of the investigation, supplementary chargesheets were filed by the Investigation Agency just before the expiry of 60 days, with the purpose of scuttling the right to default bail accrued in favour the accused - The Investigating Agency and the trial Court, thus, failed to observe the mandate of law, and acted in a manner which was manifestly arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the accused. It is pertinent to mention that the right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The reason for such importance being given to a seemingly insignificant procedural formality is to ensure that no accused person is subject to unfettered and arbitrary power of the state - it becomes essential to place certain checks and balances upon the Investigation Agency in order to prevent the harassment of accused persons at their hands. The interim order of bail passed in favour of the accused is made absolute, and the present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Can a chargesheet or prosecution complaint be filed in piecemeal without first completing the investigation of the case?
2. Whether the filing of such a chargesheet without completing the investigation will extinguish the right of an accused for grant of default bail?
3. Whether the remand of an accused can be continued by the trial court during the pendency of investigation beyond the stipulated time as prescribed by the CrPC?

Summary:

Preliminary Objection:
A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent stating that the writ petition is not maintainable before the Supreme Court on the grounds that no relief can be granted at such an early stage of the investigation. The Court rejected this objection, emphasizing its constitutional duty to protect civil liberties and fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Issue I:
The Court held that without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The Court traced the legislative history and intent behind Section 167(2), emphasizing that it was enacted to prevent arbitrary detention and ensure timely completion of investigations.

Issue II:
The Court ruled that the filing of a chargesheet without completing the investigation does not extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. It noted that the practice of filing incomplete chargesheets to scuttle the right to default bail is contrary to the legislative intent and violates the fundamental rights of the accused.

Issue III:
The Court concluded that the trial court cannot continue to remand an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without offering the arrested person default bail. The Court emphasized that remand and custody create a power imbalance between the investigating authority and the accused, and it is essential to place checks and balances to prevent harassment.

Conclusion:
The Court found that the supplementary chargesheets were filed by the Investigation Agency just before the expiry of 60 days to scuttle the right to default bail. The trial court's acceptance of these incomplete chargesheets and the continuation of the remand were deemed arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the accused. The interim order of bail was made absolute, and the writ petition was disposed of.