Supreme Court clarifies conditions for default bail: No deposit required under Section 167(2) CrPC

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: October 15, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 728
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a court impose a condition of depositing money when granting default bail to an accused person? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the scope of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This judgment underscores the importance of personal liberty and the strict timelines for completing investigations. The bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, delivered a unanimous verdict on this matter.

Case Background

The appellant, Saravanan, was arrested on January 31, 2020, and remanded to judicial custody for offenses under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was registered as Crime No. 31 of 2019 at the D.C.B. Police Station, Kanyakumari District. Initially, Saravanan applied for regular bail under Section 437 of the CrPC. His wife filed an affidavit assuring the court that they would deposit Rs. 7,00,000, with the balance to be paid by April 6, 2020, against the alleged amount of Rs. 15,67,338.

On February 3, 2020, the Judicial Magistrate granted bail to Saravanan, conditional on depositing Rs. 7,00,000 immediately and the remaining Rs. 8,67,338 by April 6, 2020. Dissatisfied with these conditions, Saravanan approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which dismissed his plea but allowed him to seek modifications from the Magistrate Court.

Subsequently, Saravanan applied for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, arguing that he had been in jail for over 101 days without the police filing a final report. The Sessions Court dismissed this application, citing his failure to comply with the earlier bail conditions.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the conditions imposed by the Judicial Magistrate while granting regular bail. The High Court dismissed this application, allowing the appellant to approach the Magistrate Court for modifications. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application before the Sessions Court for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, which was dismissed.

The High Court, in its order dated June 24, 2020, granted default bail but imposed a condition to deposit Rs. 8,00,000, considering the earlier undertaking by the appellant’s wife to deposit Rs. 7,00,000. The High Court dismissed a subsequent plea to modify this condition on July 27, 2020.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with default bail. This provision states that if the investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days (depending on the offense) and the charge sheet is not filed, the accused is entitled to be released on bail.

Section 437 of the CrPC, on the other hand, deals with regular bail, where the court has the discretion to impose conditions while granting bail.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) is an “indefeasible right” that arises from the failure of the investigating agency to complete the investigation within the stipulated time.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The primary argument was that the High Court’s condition to deposit Rs. 8,00,000 while granting default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC was illegal and contrary to the scheme of the provision.
• The appellant contended that default bail is a mandatory right if the investigation is not completed within the statutory period, and no other conditions can be imposed.
• The appellant argued that the undertaking given by his wife during the regular bail application under Section 437 CrPC should not affect his right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.
• The appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, which held that default bail cannot be frustrated by the prosecution or the Court.

State’s Arguments:

• The State tried to justify the High Court’s order by arguing that the deposit condition was imposed considering the earlier undertaking given by the appellant’s wife to deposit Rs. 7,00,000.
• The State contended that since the alleged amount in the case was Rs. 15,67,338, the High Court was justified in imposing the condition of depositing Rs. 8,00,000.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether, while releasing the appellant-accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, any condition of deposit of amount, as imposed by the High Court, could have been imposed?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases:

• Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 – The Supreme Court relied heavily on this case, which clarified that default bail is an indefeasible right and cannot be frustrated by the prosecution or the Court.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – This provision deals with default bail, stating that if the investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days, the accused is entitled to be released on bail.
• Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – This provision deals with regular bail, where the court has the discretion to impose conditions while granting bail.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67* to emphasize that default bail is an indefeasible right. The court stated that *“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.”*

The Court interpreted Section 167(2) of the CrPC to mean that default bail is granted when the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated time, without any condition of deposit. The Court distinguished Section 437 of the CrPC from Section 167(2) CrPC, stating that conditions can be imposed for regular bail but not for default bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that personal liberty is paramount and that the right to default bail is an “indefeasible right” when the investigation is not completed within the statutory time frame. The Court emphasized that imposing a condition of deposit of money while granting default bail would frustrate the very purpose of the provision. The Court also noted that the circumstances for considering regular bail under Section 437 CrPC are different from those for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.

Fact:Law

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily based on the interpretation of the law, particularly Section 167(2) of the CrPC, which emphasizes the legal right to default bail. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal principles and precedents weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Imposing a condition of deposit of money while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is illegal.
• Default bail is an “indefeasible right” that arises when the investigation is not completed within the statutory period.
• The circumstances for regular bail under Section 437 CrPC are different from those for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.
• Courts cannot frustrate the right to default bail by imposing conditions that are not prescribed in Section 167(2) CrPC.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of personal liberty and the strict timelines for completing investigations.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the condition imposed by the High Court to deposit Rs. 8,00,000 as a condition for default bail. The Court also modified the condition requiring the appellant to report daily at the police station. Instead, the Court directed the appellant to cooperate with the investigating agency and report to the police station as and when called for interrogation.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that no condition of deposit can be imposed while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. This judgment reinforces the principle that default bail is an indefeasible right and clarifies the distinction between regular bail and default bail. The Supreme Court’s decision reiterates the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines for completing investigations and upholds the personal liberty of an accused. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Saravanan vs. State is a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The Court unequivocally held that imposing a condition of deposit of money while granting default bail is illegal and frustrates the very purpose of the provision. This decision reinforces the importance of personal liberty and the strict timelines for completing investigations. The Court’s emphasis on the “indefeasible right” to default bail underscores the protection afforded to accused persons under the law.