Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State of NCT of Delhi, has held that an accused has a right to be released on default bail where the prosecution files a preliminary or incomplete chargesheet within the statutory period.

Background

• In this case, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered for the offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the year 2021.
• In September 2021, the accused was arrested.
• Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed in 2021.
• In 2022, two supplementary chargesheets were filed.
• Before the Sessions Court, the accused filed an application seeking default bail under Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• The Sessions Court dismissed the accused's application.
• Thereafter, a plea for default bail was filed before the Delhi High Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

Court’s Observations

• Justice Amit Sharma observed that an accused has a right to be released on default bail where the prosecution files a preliminary or incomplete chargesheet within the statutory period.
• The Court further held that the right of an accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC would arise in a case where the chargesheet is not filed within the stipulated period.
  • The other circumstance giving rise to the right to default bail would be in case where the prosecution files a preliminary or incomplete chargesheet, within the period prescribed for offences mentioned therein and, in that process defeating the right of the accused to statutory bail.

Legal Provisions

Section 167, CrPC

• This Section deals with the procedure when an investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. It states that -
  (1)Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
  
  (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction.
  
  Provided that -
  
  
  (a) the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding
  
  (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
  
  (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence,
  
  and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter.
  
  (b) No Magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage.
  
  (c) No Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the police.
• This Section (167), while enunciating the law on remand also affords protection to accused against detention during inordinate delay in completion of investigation.
• It provides that, wherein the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period of 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, thereafter the accused can avail his right of default bail on the expiry of the said period.
• In other words, where the investigation agency has not filed a chargesheet within a period of 60 days (or 90 days in the case of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for not less than 10 years) of the investigation then the accused becomes entitled to be released on bail.
• Thus, where no chargesheet has been filed within the stipulated period the accused can no longer be detained in custody, on the expiration of such period.
• In Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992), it was held that the Magistrate under Section 167(2) can authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as he thinks fit but it should not exceed fifteen days in the whole.