Accused gets an indefeasible right to default bail – Supreme Court
In the case of Saravanan Vs State represented by the Inspector of Police [Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos.43864387/ 2020] Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 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. The appellant was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The appellant filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The wife of the appellant filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate and assured to pay Seven Lakhs of the alleged amount of Rupees Fifteen lakhs Sixty Seven thousand Three hundred thirty eight only. The learned Magistrate released the appellant on bail on the condition to deposit Rupees Seven Lakh in the court and after release pay the remaining amount. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with condition of the order passed by the learned Magistrate releasing the appellant on bail, 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. 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. The appellant was arrested and remanded for more than 101 days and the investigation was not completed and the police had 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 condition to deposit money in the Court and the same had 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 had filed an application for default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court and prayed to release the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It was the case on behalf of the appellant that non-deposit of any amount which was required to be deposited pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate, imposed while releasing the appellant on regular bail under Section 437, Cr.P.C., shall not come in the way of the appellant in getting default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. High Court had imposed the condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/before the learned Magistrate. It was submitted by the appellant that as observed by this Court in 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. It was submitted that the conditions imposed by the High Court while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail are against the scheme of Section 167, Cr. P.C. Court observed that, “We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking into consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular bail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/.”
dated 24.06.2020 in Criminal O.P.(MD) No. 6214 of 2020 and passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court by which the High Court has released the appellant on default bail statutory bail on condition to deposit Rs.8 00 000 ­ before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Nagercoil Kanyakumari District the original accused has preferred the 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 alleged amount of Rs.15 67 338 ­ and the police has not filed the final report within the period allowed on condition to deposit Rs.7 00 000 ­ in the Court and the same has not been complied with and despite the liberty 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 amount which was required to be deposited pursuant to the the appellant on regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. shall bail statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the default bail statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is mandatory bail provided the conditions in Section 167 Cr.P.C. are satisfied i.e. investigation is not completed and the chargesheet report is not filed by the Cr.P.C. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2020 accepted the same however considering the of the learned Magistrate while considering the regular bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. i.e. to deposit Rs.7 00 000 ­ while releasing the appellant on default bail statutory bail the High Court has imposed the condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8 00 000 ­ before the learned Magistrate. That thereafter the appellant preferred High Court to modify condition nos. and in Criminal deposit Rs.8 00 000 ­ before the learned Judicial Magistrate and station daily at 10:00 a.m. until further orders for interrogation By the impugned order dated 27.07.2020 the High Court has dismissed the said application for modification observing that earlier wife of the appellant filed affidavit before the learned Magistrate to deposit Rs.7 00 000 ­ and the alleged amount is Rs.32 23 073 ­ condition nos. and in order dated scheme of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as Cr.P.C. give due regard to the personal liberty of a person as may be applicable an accused cannot be detained by the v. State of Assam 15 SCC 67 where investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days as the case may be no chargesheet 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 bail but only needs to state that 60 90 days as the case may be have expired chargesheet not filed he is entitled to bail and willing to furnish the same. It is submitted that therefore condition nos. and imposed by the High Court while 6.1 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf before the learned Magistrate to deposit Rs.7 00 000 ­ and the earlier order passed by the learned Magistrate to release the appellant on deposit of Rs.15 67 338 ­ was with respect to come in the way of the appellant in getting the default bail statutory bail if a case is made out under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as such and in fact the High Court bail statutory bail however with condition to deposit Rs.8 00 000 ­ on the ground that while considering the regular bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. the wife of the appellant agreed to and filed affidavit to deposit Rs.7 00 000 ­. It is submitted that condition to deposit Rs.8 00 000 ­ while releasing the appellant on default bail statutory bail on the aforesaid ground would defeat the very purpose of grant of 6.2 Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the present appeals and delete condition nos. and of order 7. Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has tried to support the 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. directing the appellant to deposit Rs.8 00 000 ­ default bail statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. any condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court and considering the scheme and the object and purpose of appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8 00 000 ­ while releasing High Court has imposed such a condition taking into regular bail application before the learned Magistrate the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7 00 000 ­ more particularly in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days as the case may be and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default bail and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused applies for default bail and furnish bail. Therefore the only requirement for getting the default bail statutory bail under 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 chargesheet 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 default bail statutory bail would frustrate the very object and bail subject to the eventuality occurring in Section 167 Cr.P.C. namely investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to 9.1 As observed hereinabove and even from the impugned imposed the condition to deposit Rs.8 00 000 ­ taking into 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 9.2. The circumstances while considering the regular bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different while deposit Rs.8 00 000 ­ while releasing the appellant on default 10. Now so far as condition no.imposed by the High Court namely directing the appellant 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 condition which can be imposed is concerned police station for investigation interrogation as and when called for and on breach the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on present appeals succeed. Condition No. of order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the High Court in Criminal OP(MD) No 6214 of 2020 i.e. directing the appellant to deposit Rs.8 00 000 ­ to the credit of crime No. 319 before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Nagercoil Kanyakumari District while releasing the appellant on default bail is hereby quashed and set aside. Condition no.namely directing the a.m. daily until further orders for interrogation is hereby co­operate with the investigating agency and shall report the concerned police station as and when called investigation interrogation and on non­cooperation the of the conditions imposed by the High Court in order dated 13. The appeals are allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms