The Supreme Court upheld the writ petition lodged against the CBI for its act of submitting supplementary chargesheets right before the expiry of 60 days, intending to deprive the Accused of their right to default bail.
It was critical to prevent the investigation agency from misusing its authority. The right to default bail was upheld as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court, therefore, granted interim bail in favour of the Accused.
Brief Facts:
The facts in the writ petition were that an FIR was lodged under Section 120(B), read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 7,12 and 13(2), read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but the Petitioner's husband (hereinafter referred to as the “Accused”) was not named. Later, two supplementary chargesheets were filed, and the Accused was named as a Prosecution witness in them. Thereafter, multiple supplementary chargesheets were filed in which the Accused was not named.
The investigation was then transferred to another Investigating Officer. The Accused was arrested by CBI in April 2022, after which multiple supplementary chargesheets were filed in which the accused was named as a suspect and was never released on default bail.
The Petitioner filed a writ seeking bail, which was allowed by the Court, and interim bail was granted. The Petitioner filed the writ against the continuation of custody and the scuttling of relief of default bail. According to the writ Petitioner, every supplementary chargesheet filed was an attempt to ensure that her husband was not released on default bail.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was argued that the Respondents had acknowledged in writing in the supplementary chargesheet that the investigation was still ongoing. Therefore the Trial Court should not have issued a warrant and detained the Accused under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. The accused's basic rights are being violated due to his prolonged custody on the grounds of an incomplete investigation. It was asserted that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not allow for continued detention beyond 60 days if the investigation is ongoing.
Contentions of the Respondents (CBI):
It was contended that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the Accused should have approached the High Court or filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. It was argued that the supplementary chargesheet filed in June 2022 was a complete document concerning the offence committed by the individuals named in it. Therefore, no right to default bail had been granted to the Accused.
Observations of the Court:
The issues which were to be adjudicated by the Court were framed as :
- Whether a chargesheet or a prosecution complaint be filed piecemeal without first completing the investigation of the case?
- Whether the filing of such a chargesheet without completing the investigation will extinguish the right of an accused to grant default bail?
- Can the trial Court continue the remand of an accused during the pendency of the investigation beyond the stipulated time as prescribed by the CrPC?
It was observed that the Supreme Court cannot refuse to adjudicate on issues pertaining to the fundamental rights of the citizen on grounds of technicalities. Hence, the petition was said to be maintainable.
The Apex Court elucidated that Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C provides an appropriate time frame for investigation while safeguarding the Accused's personal liberty. The Court held that this provision is a part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the investigating authority must expedite the investigation process within the stipulated time. It is essential to complete the investigation before filing a chargesheet or complaint; otherwise, the Accused has a statutory right to default bail. The Court found that denial of default bail is a violation of the Indian Constitution.
It was opined that if the supplementary chargesheet states that the investigation is pending, the same cannot be sued to defeat the right of default bail.
The Top Court expounded that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right of the Accused, even in matters under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. Filing incomplete chargesheets to deprive the Accused of default bail is against the fundamental rights guaranteed to Accused persons. The Trial Court cannot continue to remand an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without providing default bail.
The following principles were enunciated by the Supreme Court:
(i)Investigation Agency cannot file a chargesheet or complaint without finishing the investigation only to deprive the Accused of his right to default bail.
(ii)If any such chargesheet is filed, the Accused would still have the right to default bail.
(iii) The Accused cannot be remanded beyond the stipulated time period.
In the present case, it was noted that the investigation agency filed supplementary chargesheets just before the expiry of 60 days with the intention of denying the Accused their right to default bail. The Trial Court overlooked this fact and continued to keep the Accused in remand even after the maximum period specified had lapsed. This decision was arbitrary and thus violated the fundamental rights of the Accused. The right to default bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is crucial in preventing the abuse of power by the investigating agency.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court based on the above-mentioned reasons, made the interim bail order in favour of the Accused.
Case Title: Ritu Chhabaria v Union of India & ors
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari, Hon’ble Justice CT Ravikumar
Case No.: Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 60 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 386 SC
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Santosh Sachin
Advocate for Respondent: Adv.Arvind Kumar Sharma
Read judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
