On 26th Oct 2020 the Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Justice Vineet Saran deciding the issue of an indefeasible right accruing to the appellant under Section 167(2), CrPC gets extinguished by the subsequent filing of an additional complaint by the investigating agency held that the right on default bail continues to remain enforceable till the accused applies for it.
Factual Background of the case
The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offense punishable under Section 8(c) r/w S. 22(c), 23(c), 25A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. After completion of 180 days from the remand date, that is, 31.09.2019, the appellant filed an application for bail u/s 167(2) of the Cr.PC 1973 on 01.02.2019 before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under the NDPS Act, Chennai (Trial Court) on the ground that the investigation was no complete and the charge sheet had not yet been filed. Accordingly, the Trial Court granted the order of bail pending before the said court.
The Respondent/Complainant filed Crl/ O.P. before the High Court of Judicature at Madras praying to cancel the bail of the appellant. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the said appeal and consequently canceled the order of bail granted by the Trial Court.
Being aggrieved, the Appellant has approached this Court questioning the judgment of the High Court.
Trial Court
The appellant filed his bail application before the Trial Court. During the course of hearing of the bail application after completion of the arguments of the Counsel for the Appellant, to be precise. The respondent/complainant filed an additional complaint against the Appellant and sought for dismissal of the bail petition on the said basis.
However, the Trial Court allowed the bail application on the ground that the Court has no power to intervene with the indefeasible right of the Appellant conferred on him by the Legislative mandate of Section 167(2).
High Court
The High Court set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the additional complaint was a filed on 01.02.2019 itself and since the application for bail under Section 167(2), CrPC was not disposed of by the time the additional complaint was filed, the appellant could not take advantage of the fact that he had filed his bail petition prior in time. The High Court further reasoned that the Court of Session conducts work from the time it sits till the time it rises and hence the appellant could not avail of any specific benefit for having filed the application at 10:30 am in as much as the additional complaint was lodged during the course of hearing of the bail application before the Court rose for the day.
SUPREME COURT
Appellant Submissions
The Appellant in its submissions relys upon the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. the State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453, The high Court has misconstrued the mandate of Section 167(2), Crpc and has gravely erred in entering into the merits of the matter; that the legislative mandate conferred by Section 167(2), CrPc was lightly brushed aside by the High Court through the Appellant had rightly invoked the provisions thereof after completion of the mandatory period of 180 days, that too prior to filling of the chargesheet/ additional complaint by the Respondent; and that subsequent filing of Chargesheet/ additional complaint bu the investigating authority cannot defeate the indefeasinle right of the Appellant.
Additional Solicitor General Submissions
Additional Solicitor General argued in support of the judgment of the High Court contending that the additional complaint was lodged while the Appellant was still in custody and prior to the disposal of the application for bail under Section 167(2) is the deciding factor to adjudge whether the accused is entitled to default bail or not.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the indefeasible right accruing to the appellant under Section 167(2), CrPC gets extinguished by the subsequent filing of an additional complaint by the investigating agency;
- Whether the Court should take into consideration the time of filing of the application for bail, based on default of the investigating agency or the time of disposal of the application for bail while answering (a).
Court Analysis
The Court in its analysis rely on the judgment on Udhay Mohanlal Acharya the majority opinion held that the accused is deemed to have exercised his right to default bail under Section 167(2), CrPC the moment he files the application for bail and offers to abide by the terms and conditions of bail.
The prosecution cannot frustrate the object of Section 167(2) CrPC by subsequently filing a chargesheet or additional complaint while the bail application is pending consideration or final disposal before a magistrate or a higher forum. Accordingly, this Court granted relief to the appellant accused in that case.
Section 167(2) and the Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Before we proceed to expand upon the parameters of the right to default bail under Section 167 (2( as interpreted by various decisions of this Court, we find it pertinent to note the observations made by this Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya on the fundamental right to personal liberty of the person and the effect of deprivation of the same as follows:
Personal Liberty is one of the cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof, as stipulated under Article 21 of the Constitution. When the law provides that the Magistrate could authorize the detention of the accused in custody up to maximum period as indicated in the 16 proviso to sub section (2) of Section 167, and further detention beyond the period without filing of a challan by the investigating agency would be subterfuge and would not be in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and as such, could be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Once the accused files an application for bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) he is deemed to have ‘availed of’ or enforced his right to be released on default bail, accruing after the expiry of the stipulated time limit for investigation.
Thus if the accused applies for bail under Section 167(2), CrPC read with Section 36A (4), NDPS Act upon expiry of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, the Court must release him on bail forthwith without any unnecessary delay after getting necessary information from the public prosecutor. Such prompt action will restrict the prosecution from frustrating the legislative mandate to release the accused on bail in case of default by the investigative agency.
The right to be released on default bail continues to remain enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding the pendency of the bail application; or subsequent filing of the charge-sheet or a report seeking an extension of time by the prosecution before the Court; or filing of the charge sheet during the interregnum when challenging to the rejection of the bail application is pending before a Higher Court.
Judgment
The Supreme Court in its judgment set aside the judgment of the High Court and confirmed the trial Court judgment.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
