Supreme Court clarifies default bail eligibility under Section 167(2) CrPC: State (NCT) of Delhi vs. Rajeev Sharma (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 April 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 456

Judges: Bela M. Trivedi J., Prasanna B. Varale J.

When can an accused be released on default bail if the investigation isn’t completed on time? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question while examining a case related to the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The core issue revolved around interpreting the phrase “imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years” in Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its implications for default bail eligibility.

In a judgment delivered on April 3, 2025, a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale clarified the scope of Section 167(2) CrPC, particularly concerning offenses where the maximum punishment is 14 years, but no minimum sentence is prescribed.

Case Background

The case originated from FIR No. 230/2020, registered on September 13, 2020, at Police Station-Special Cell, Delhi, against Rajeev Sharma (the Respondent) for offenses under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Subsequently, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was added during the investigation.

The Respondent was arrested on September 14, 2020. His initial bail application was dismissed on September 28, 2020, by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts. A subsequent application for regular bail was also rejected on October 19, 2020, by the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts.

On November 14, 2020, the Respondent filed an application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, seeking release on bail. He argued that the 60-day period since his arrest had expired, and the charge sheet had not been filed. This application was dismissed on the same day, with the court noting that the 60-day period was yet to be completed but acknowledging that statutory bail would need consideration if 60 days elapsed from the date of remand.

Following this, on November 15, 2020, the State (NCT) of Delhi filed a Revision Petition (CR No. 57/2020) before the ASJ, Patiala House Courts. Simultaneously, on the same day, the Respondent filed a fresh petition under Section 167(2) of CrPC based on similar grounds. This fresh petition was also dismissed on November 16, 2020.

Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the Respondent approached the High Court of Delhi by filing Criminal Revision Petition No. 363/2020 under Sections 397, 401, and 482 of CrPC. The High Court allowed the petition, leading the State (NCT of Delhi) to file the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Respondent’s initial bail application was dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, on September 28, 2020. A subsequent application for regular bail was also rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Patiala House Courts, on October 19, 2020.

After these rejections, the Respondent filed an application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on November 14, 2020, arguing that the 60-day period for filing the charge sheet had expired. The Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, dismissed this application, noting that the 60-day period was not yet complete but indicating that statutory bail would be considered if the deadline passed.

The State (NCT) of Delhi then filed a Revision Petition before the ASJ, Patiala House Courts. While this petition was pending, the Respondent filed another petition under Section 167(2) CrPC, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, the Respondent approached the High Court of Delhi, which allowed his Criminal Revision Petition No. 363/2020, leading to the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section deals with the procedure to be followed when an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. Specifically, it outlines the conditions under which an accused person is entitled to default bail if the investigation is not completed within a specified period.

Section 167(2) CrPC states:

“167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.—
(1) …………………………………………………….
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise 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 authorise 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 authorise 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) to (c) ……………………………………………….
(3) to (6) ……………………………………………….”

Clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) CrPC specifies that if the investigation relates to an offense punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, the accused can be detained for a maximum period of 90 days. Clause (ii) states that for any other offense, this period is 60 days. If the investigation is not completed within these periods, the accused is entitled to be released on bail.

In this case, the FIR was registered under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, along with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act prescribes a maximum punishment of 14 years, but it does not specify any minimum punishment. Section 5 of the same act prescribes a maximum punishment of three years.

Arguments

The primary point of contention in this case was whether the phrase “imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years” in Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the CrPC includes offenses where the maximum punishment is 14 years, but no minimum sentence is prescribed.

The arguments from both sides can be summarized as follows:

• Appellant (State of Delhi)’s Arguments:
  • The State likely argued that since Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act allows for a maximum imprisonment of 14 years, it should fall under the category of offenses punishable with “imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years,” thus entitling the prosecution to 90 days for investigation before default bail becomes applicable.
  • The State may have emphasized the severity of the offense under the Official Secrets Act and the need for a longer investigation period to ensure national security.
• Respondent (Rajeev Sharma)’s Arguments:
  • The Respondent likely argued that because Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act does not prescribe a minimum sentence of 10 years, it should not be included in the category mentioned in Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the CrPC. Therefore, the 60-day period for default bail should apply.
  • The Respondent probably relied on precedents and interpretations of similar provisions to support the argument that “not less than 10 years” implies a mandatory minimum sentence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the term “imprisonment for a term ‘not less than 10 years'” in clause (i) of the proviso (a) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. would include an offense where the punishment of 14 years of imprisonment is prescribed, but no minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed for such offense?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities to reach its decision:

• Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 (Supreme Court of India): This case was central to the Court’s reasoning. The Court quoted paragraph 24 of this judgment, which discusses the interpretation of “punishable” in the context of Section 167(2) CrPC. It emphasized that the words “not less than” must be given their natural meaning, indicating a minimum threshold of 10 years’ imprisonment.
• Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 277 (Supreme Court of India): Cited within Rakesh Kumar Paul, this case clarifies that where minimum and maximum sentences are prescribed, both are imposable depending on the facts of the case.
• M. Ravindran vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2020) (Supreme Court of India): This case further followed the ratio laid down in Rakesh Kumar Paul.
• Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): The primary legal provision under consideration, which outlines the conditions for default bail.
• Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923: These sections define the offenses for which the Respondent was initially charged.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section pertains to criminal conspiracy, which was added during the investigation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State (NCT of Delhi), upholding the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the Respondent. The Court held that the term “imprisonment for a term ‘not less than 10 years'” in Section 167(2) CrPC does not include offenses where the maximum punishment is 14 years, but no minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the phrase “not less than 10 years” in Section 167(2) CrPC, as established in the Rakesh Kumar Paul case. The Court emphasized the importance of a mandatory minimum sentence to trigger the 90-day investigation period. The absence of such a minimum sentence in Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act was a crucial factor.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal interpretation and precedent, with a smaller emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on established legal principles and the interpretation of specific phrases within the CrPC.

Key quotes from the judgment include:

• “From the bare reading of the said clause(i) of the proviso(a) to Section 167(2), it clearly appears that the accused would be entitled the benefit of default bail if the investigation has not been completed in ninety days when it relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and in sixty days when it relates to any other offence.”
• “In our opinion, the present case is squarely covered by the majority decision of three Judge Bench in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam.”
• “In view of the afore-stated legal position, which clinches the issue raised in the present Appeal, we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly followed the aforestated decisions and released the Respondent on bail.”

Key Takeaways

• The phrase “imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years” in Section 167(2) CrPC requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.
• Offenses where the maximum punishment is 10 years or more, but no minimum sentence is prescribed, fall under the 60-day rule for default bail.
• This judgment clarifies the scope of default bail eligibility and protects the rights of accused persons.

Directions

The Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the trial as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the phrase “imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years” in Section 167(2) CrPC requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. This clarifies the interpretation of this provision and reinforces the importance of a mandatory minimum sentence in determining the applicable investigation period for default bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State (NCT) of Delhi vs. Rajeev Sharma clarifies the scope of Section 167(2) CrPC, particularly concerning default bail eligibility. By affirming that “imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years” requires a mandatory minimum sentence, the Court has reinforced the protection of individual liberties and ensured a stricter interpretation of the conditions for extending investigation periods.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Bail
  • Default Bail
  • Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Official Secrets Act, 1923

FAQ

1. What is default bail?

   Default bail is the right of an accused person to be released on bail if the investigating agency fails to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet within a specified period, as outlined in Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

2. What does “imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years” mean under Section 167(2) CrPC?

   According to this judgment, it means that the offense must have a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years or more. If there is no minimum sentence prescribed, even if the maximum sentence is higher, the 60-day rule for default bail applies.

3. How does this judgment affect people accused under the Official Secrets Act?

   If a person is accused of offenses under the Official Secrets Act where no minimum sentence is prescribed, they are entitled to default bail if the investigation is not completed within 60 days of their arrest.

4. What should I do if I am arrested and the police have not filed a charge sheet within the specified time?

   You should immediately file an application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC before the relevant magistrate court.