Supreme Court clarifies the scope of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC: Ritu Chhabaria vs. Union of India (26 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 378

Judges: Krishna Murari, J., C. T. Ravikumar, J.

Can an investigating agency file a chargesheet without completing the investigation, just to prevent an accused person from getting default bail? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question related to personal liberty in the case of Ritu Chhabaria vs. Union of India. The Court clarified that filing a chargesheet without completing the investigation will not extinguish the right of an accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This judgment emphasizes the importance of timely investigations and the protection of individual liberties. The bench consisted of Justices Krishna Murari and C. T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case revolves around the arrest and continued detention of the petitioner’s husband. Initially, an FIR was filed under Section 120(B) read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with other sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner’s husband was not named in this initial FIR.

Subsequently, the investigating agency filed multiple supplementary chargesheets. In one of these, dated 26.05.2020, the petitioner’s husband was listed as a prosecution witness. He was not named as an accused in any of these supplementary chargesheets.

However, the investigation was later transferred to a new investigating officer, and the petitioner’s husband was arrested on 28.04.2022 and remanded to custody. Following his arrest, further supplementary chargesheets were filed, now naming him as a suspect. His remand under Section 309(2) of the CrPC was continuously extended, and he was never released on default bail.

The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking her husband’s release on default bail, contending that the continued custody was a violation of his fundamental rights. The petitioner argued that every supplementary chargesheet was an attempt to prevent her husband from being released on default bail.

Timeline

Arguments

The petitioner argued that the respondent admitted in writing that the investigation was still pending. Therefore, the trial court should not have issued process and remanded the petitioner’s husband under Section 309 of the CrPC. The petitioner also argued that the accused’s fundamental rights were being violated due to continued custody while the investigation was still ongoing. They relied on the judgment in M. Ravindran Vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [(2021) 2 SCC 485], arguing that the CrPC does not allow remand beyond 60 days if the investigation is not complete.

The respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable. They argued that the petitioner should have approached the High Court or filed a Special Leave Petition. The respondent also argued that the FIR is not a complete document and is only the first step in the criminal procedure. They relied on State Of Bihar & Others Vs. J.A.C Saldanha & Ors. [(1980) 1 SCC 554]. The respondent further stated that the supplementary chargesheet filed on 25.06.2022 was complete and therefore, the petitioner’s husband was not entitled to default bail.

Arguments of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Can a chargesheet or a prosecution complaint be filed in piecemeal without first completing the investigation of the case?
2. Whether the filing of such a chargesheet without completing the investigation will extinguish the right of an accused for grant of default bail?
3. Whether the remand of an accused can be continued by the trial court during the pendency of investigation beyond the stipulated time as prescribed by the CrPC?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered several authorities while arriving at its decision. These are categorized by the legal point they address:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on M. Ravindran Vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [(2021) 2 SCC 485]* to emphasize the importance of default bail and the legislative intent behind Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The Court also referred to K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors. [(2017) 10 SCC 1]* and K.K Kochunni, Moopil Nayar vs. State of Madras & Ors. [1959 Supp (2) SCR 316]* to highlight its role in protecting fundamental rights. The Court relied on Union Of India vs Thamisharasi & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 190]* and Ashok Munilal Jain & Anr. Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement [(2018) 16 SCC 158]* to reiterate that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right. The Court distinguished the judgments relied upon by the respondent, stating that they did not deal with the issue of default bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the fundamental right to personal liberty, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the right to default bail is not merely a statutory right but a fundamental right. The court was concerned with the misuse of the process of law by the investigating agency, which was attempting to circumvent the statutory provisions of default bail by filing incomplete chargesheets. The Court also highlighted the power imbalance between the investigating agency and the accused, and the need to place checks and balances on the investigating agency to prevent the harassment of accused persons.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Can a chargesheet be filed piecemeal without completing the investigation?

Issue 2: Does an incomplete chargesheet extinguish the right to default bail?

Issue 3: Can remand be continued beyond the stipulated time during pending investigation?

Court’s Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is rooted in the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. The Court observed that the practice of filing preliminary reports under the old CrPC has now been replaced by the practice of filing incomplete chargesheets to circumvent the right to default bail. The Court noted that the purpose of Section 167(2) of the CrPC is to ensure that the investigating agency completes the investigation within a prescribed time limit.

The Court emphasized that the right to default bail is not merely a statutory right but a fundamental right. The Court stated, “Section 167(2) was introduced in the year 1978, giving emphasis to the maximum period of time to complete the investigation. This provision has got a laudable object behind it, which is to ensure an expeditious investigation and a fair trial, and to set down a rationalised procedure that protects the interests of the indigent sections of society. This is also another limb of Article 21.”

The Court also noted that the investigating agency and the trial court had failed to observe the mandate of law and acted in a manner that was arbitrary and violated the fundamental rights of the accused. The Court stated, “The Investigating Agency and the trial court, thus, failed to observe the mandate of law, and acted in a manner which was manifestly arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the accused.”

The Court further clarified that, “the right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court rejected the respondent’s arguments that the writ petition was not maintainable, stating that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to protect fundamental rights. The Court also distinguished the judgments relied upon by the respondent, stating that they did not deal with the issue of default bail.

Key Takeaways

• Investigating agencies cannot file incomplete chargesheets to deny an accused their right to default bail.
• The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a fundamental right, not just a statutory right.
• Trial courts cannot continue remand beyond the stipulated time without offering default bail if the investigation is not complete.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of timely investigations and the protection of individual liberties.

Directions

The interim order of bail passed in favor of the accused was made absolute.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a chargesheet filed without completing the investigation does not extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. This judgment clarifies the scope of default bail and reinforces the importance of timely investigations. It also emphasizes that the right to default bail is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. This ruling prevents the misuse of the process of law by investigating agencies to circumvent the statutory provisions of default bail.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ritu Chhabaria vs. Union of India clarifies that investigating agencies cannot file incomplete chargesheets to deny an accused their right to default bail. The Court emphasized that the right to default bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and that trial courts cannot continue remand beyond the stipulated time if the investigation is not complete. This judgment is a significant step in protecting the personal liberties of individuals and ensuring that the process of law is not misused.