The Apex Court emphasised that the right to default bail under Section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) was a conditional right that only arose during the pendency of the investigation and not after the completion of the investigation. The Court made it clear that once the investigation was complete, the question of default bail did not arise. The Court reiterated that the right to default bail was valuable but conditional.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The appellants lodged Criminal Appeals in the Supreme Court challenging the impugned order by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. These appeals were filed by five under-trial accused, who were charged with committing various offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Sections 17, 18, 18B, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA”), and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “ESA”). However, the High Court denied their appeals and rejected their claim for release on default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
Brief Background of the Case:
In June 2019, whilst conducting a vehicular examination in the District of Amritsar, Punjab, the police sighted two Sikh boys riding a motorcycle without a registration plate. When the police tried to interrogate the boys, they absconded and dropped a bag containing two hand grenades and a mobile phone. Thus, a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) was lodged, alleging offences under ESA. Subsequently, the police appended Sections 17, 18, 18B, and 20 of the UAPA and the offence specified under Section 120B of the IPC to the FIR.
Procedural History:
In September 2019, the Punjab Police requested an extension to complete their investigation into one of the accused, purportedly concerning offences committed under the UAPA. Subsequently, the Additional Sessions Judge in Amritsar allowed the extension and increased the period from 90 to 180 days to conclude the investigation. In November 2019, the investigating agency filed a chargesheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2 within the permissible period of 180 days and against accused Nos. 3 and 4 within 90 days under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The case was then referred to the Court of Sessions and registered without taking cognizance by the Additional Sessions Judge in Amritsar in December 2019.
In December 2020, an application for default bail was filed, but the Special Court refused to grant it, considering that the chargesheet had already been filed. The Government of Punjab granted sanction for prosecution under the UAPA, which the Special Court acknowledged. The accused appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana but was ultimately dismissed. Furthermore, the Government of India granted sanction for prosecution under Section 45(1) of the UAPA, following which the National Investigation Agency (hereinafter referred to as “NIA”) filed a supplementary chargesheet before the Special Judge. Subsequently, the Special Court under the purview of the NIA, the Special Court took cognizance of the offences, issued notices to the accused persons, and proceeded to frame charges against them.
Contentions of the Appellants (Accused in the Original Case):
The appellants contended that the High Court erred in not granting them default bail, emphasising that the chargesheet filed without sanction was incomplete and did not fulfil the requirements of a police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, rendering it useless for police to deny an application seeking statutory/default bail. They argued that the chargesheet filed under the UAPA must be comprehensive, accompanied by a sanction order for the Court to take cognisance. The appellants invoked Rules 3 and 4 of the UAPA to show that the prosecution's recommendation and sanction were time-bound. The sanction order had to accompany the chargesheet for it to be considered a final report.
Moreover, the appellants argued that filing the chargesheet before the Court of Magistrate was erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “NIA Act”) and UAPA, as proceedings under the NIA could only be conducted in the Special Court designated under Section 22 of the NIA Act. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction and null and void. The appellants prayed for their release on default bail and requested that their appeals be granted.
Contentions of the Respondents (National Investigation Agency):
The respondents had advanced the argument that Section 167(2) of the CrPC only guarantees the right of an accused person to be released on default bail if the chargesheet is not filed within the statutory period. They claimed that this right is not absolute and may be forfeited if the chargesheet is filed within the prescribed period or before an application is made under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The respondents also contended that filing a chargesheet without sanction within 180 days is not equivalent to not filing it within the stipulated time.
Furthermore, the respondents argued that granting sanction for prosecution is the responsibility of an authority other than the Investigating Agency, as specified by various statutes. They pointed out that the State Investigating Agency had sought sanction for prosecution from the appropriate Governments when they filed the first chargesheet and that the question of sanction for prosecution only arises at the stage of taking cognizance, which is distinct from the investigation stage.
In addition, the respondents maintained that since the State Police were conducting the investigation, they had filed the chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. They contended that if the accused persons had objections to the validity and legality of the sanctions or how cognizance was taken, they could have raised these issues before the trial Court.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court analysed that a chargesheet filed without sanction can still be considered complete. The Supreme Court clarified that the chargesheet filed by the investigating officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC is a final report. In addition, the Court reiterated that the grant of sanction is not mandatory for the completion of an investigation, and its absence does not vitiate the final report. The Court emphasised that the grant of sanction is not an idle formality and should reflect a proper application of mind on the evidence gathered by the investigating officer.
The Supreme Court observed that the right to statutory bail gets extinguished if the charge sheet is filed within the stipulated period, and the grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under Section 167 of the CrPC. The Court construed that resorting to a supplementary charge sheet can only be done after the main charge sheet has been filed. A supplementary charge sheet explicitly stating that the investigation is still pending cannot be used to scuttle the right of default bail. The Court summarised that the right of default bail is triggered if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated period and a charge sheet or complaint is not filed.
The Court further opined that the filing of the chargesheet in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, instead of the Special Court as notified under Section 22 of the NIA Act and the Magistrate, thereafter, committing the case to the Court of Sessions under the provisions of Section 209 of the CrPC, does not vitiate all further proceedings. The Court held that the chargesheet filing is in adequate compliance with the requirements of Section 167 of the CrPC. The Apex Court clarified that the strict interpretation of the definition of “Court” includes the Special Court established under Sections 11 and 22 of the NIA Act, thus removing any inconsistency in the law.
The Decision of the Court:
Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the Criminal Appeals filed by the accused persons.
Case Title: Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra v National Investigation Agency
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 424 SC
Coram: Hon’ble CJI Dr. D.Y Chandrachud and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B Pardiwala
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Sangram Saron, Adv., Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mugdha, Adv., Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G., Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Adv., Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv., Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv., Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv., Mr. Samar Singh Kachwaha, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
