Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Singh @ Amrit And Another vs State Of Punjab on 5 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084804-DB
CRA-D No.160 of 2022 -1- 2023:PHHC:084804-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D No.160 2022
Date of Decision.05.07.2023
Amritpal Singh @ Amrit and another ...Appellants
Vs
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
Present: Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. R.S. Pandher, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants herein under Section 21
of the National Investigation Act, 2008 challenging the order dated 02.02.2022
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby their application for
grant of default bail under Section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
read with Section 43 (D) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter
referred to as UAPA Act) in FIR No.187 dated 16.08.2021 registered under
Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act (Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances
Act and 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA Act added later on) registered at Police
Station Gharinda, Amritsar, Punjab has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the
appellants are entitled for default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on the
ground that though the prosecution has submitted the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C., the same sans sanctions under Sections 45 of UAPA Act, Section 39 of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084804-DB
CRA-D No.160 of 2022 -2- 2023:PHHC:084804-DB
the Arms Act and Section 7 of Explosive Substances Act. Sanctions under
Section 39 of the Arms Act and under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act
have been obtained on 06.10.2022 and supplementary challan with respect to
offences under UAPA Act after getting sanction from the Home Department has
been submitted on 16.11.2022 i.e. after filing of the appeal before this Court and
therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed default bail to the appellants. In
support of his argument, he relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Fakhrey Alam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 (2) SCJ 584
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted default bail to the accused under
Section 167 Cr.P.C. in a case where the charge-sheet had been submitted after
211 days i.e. after the stipulated period of 180 days. Reliance has also been
placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.
Ravindran Vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
(2021) 2 SCC 485 to contend that once accused files application for bail under
Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., he is deemed to have enforced his right to be released on
default bail and the said right cannot be defeated merely because the prosecution
files chage sheet prior to furnishing of bail. It is also argued that default bail
under first proviso of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. is a fundamental right and not
merely a statutory right as it is a procedure established by law under Article 21 of
the Constitution and therefore, the appellants are entitled for default bail.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State would
submit that filing of charge-sheet is sufficient compliance of Section 167 Cr.P.C.
and the accused cannot claim any indefeasible right of being released on default
bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that cognizance not taken before
expiry of statutory time period to file charge-sheet. In support of his argument,
he relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgebir
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084804-DB
CRA-D No.160 of 2022 -3- 2023:PHHC:084804-DB
Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir & others Vs. National Investigation
Agency 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 334.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper
book as well as the case laws cited with their assistance.
5. The argument raised by the counsel appearing for the appellants that the
report submitted under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. was bereft of sanctions, which
were mandated to be obtained under Sections 45 of UAPA Act, Section 39 of the
Arms Act and Section 7 of Explosive Substances Act is not sustainable, in view
of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgebir Singh's case
(supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"63. Thus, we answer Issue No.1 holding that filing of chargesheet is
sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 of CrPC, 1973
and that an accused cannot claim any indefeasible right of being released
on statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 on the
ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of the
statutory time period to file the chargesheet. We once again, reiterate
what this Court said in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain (supra) that
grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under Section 167 of the CrPC,
1973."
6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, charge-sheet
filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. without valid sanctions cannot be said to be an
incomplete charge-sheet or no charge sheet in the eyes of law to give an
indefeasible right to the accused to be released on statutory/default bail under
Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order dated
02.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar declining default
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084804-DB
CRA-D No.160 of 2022 -4- 2023:PHHC:084804-DB
bail to the appellants under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the instant
appeal stands dismissed. Misc. application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE
July 05, 2023
Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084804-DB
4 of 4
