On 15th October 2020 the Supreme Court of India in the case of Saravanan V. State represented by the Inspector of Police comprising of a single Bench judge of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice MR Shah said that when an accused is being granted default or statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a condition cannot be imposed on him for the deposit of money.
Factual Background
The appellant herein was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The appellant herein filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. That the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate and assured to pay Rs.7,00,000/¬ and the balance amount to be paid, against the alleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/¬. Therefore, by order, the learned Magistrate released the appellant on bail on the conditions stated in the said order. One of the conditions was directing the appellant to deposit Rs.7,00,000/¬ in the Court, and the balance amount of Rs. 8,67,338/¬ was directed to be deposited.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with condition nos. 2 and 3 of the order passed by the learned Magistrate releasing the appellant on bail, i.e, directing the appellant to deposit Rs.7,00,000/¬, out of the total alleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/¬ and the balance to be deposited on or before 6.4.2020, the appellant approached the High Court. The High Court dismissed the said application with liberty to the appellant to approach the Magistrate Court for any modification and observed that if any modification is required, the same may be considered by the Magistrate. That thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the learned Sessions Court to release the appellant on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. It was the case on behalf of the appellant that he was arrested and he is inside the jail for more than 101 days and the investigation is not completed and the police has not filed the final report within the period provided under Section 167 Cr.P.C. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Court on the ground that earlier when the appellant applied for regular bail and which was allowed on the condition to deposit Rs.7,00,000/¬ in the Court and the same has not been complied with, and despite the liberty reserved by the High Court to approach the Magistrate Court for modification of the conditions, instead of doing so, the appellant has filed an application for default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the said application.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
The Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that condition nos. (b) and (d) imposed by the High Court imposed while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C is contrary to the scheme of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as observed by this Court in a catena of decisions, the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure delineates that provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C. give due regard to the personal liberty of a person. Without submission of charge sheet within 60 days or 90 days, as may be applicable, an accused cannot be detained by the Police. The provision gives due recognition to personal liberty. It is submitted that as held by this Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. the State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, no charge sheet is filed on the 60th or 90th day, accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail, accused becomes entitled to default bail, it cannot be frustrated either by the prosecution or the Court. It is submitted that it is further held that the accused need not make out any grounds for the grant of default bail but only needs to state that 60/90 days, as the case may be, have expired, charge sheet not filed, he is entitled to bail and willing to furnish the same. It is submitted that therefore condition nos. (b) and (d) imposed by the High Court while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail are against the scheme of Section 167, Cr. P.C.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent
The Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has tried to support the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court by submitting that as earlier the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate to deposit Rs.7,00,000/¬ and the alleged amount was Rs.15,67,338/¬, probably the High Court has imposed condition no. (b) directing the appellant to deposit Rs.8,00,000/¬.
Court Analysis
The only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no charge sheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. As observed by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) and in other decisions, the accused is entitled to default bail/statutory bail, subject to the eventuality occurring in Section 167, Cr.P.C., namely, the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no charge sheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail.
The court noted that the High Court had imposed such a condition taking into consideration that earlier before the Magistrate and while considering the regular bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C., the wife of the accused filed an affidavit to deposit Rs.7,00,000/¬. That cannot be a ground to impose the condition to deposit the amount involved, while granting default bail/statutory bail, it said.
The Court also observed that another condition imposed by the High Court, namely, directing the accused to report before the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned, the same is also unsustainable, as it is too harsh. Instead, a condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when called for, and on the breach, the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on breach of such condition.
Judgment
The appeals were allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
