LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an accused is entitled to statutory bail if they were not present when the trial court initially extended the investigation period.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Qamar Ghani Usmani vs. The State of Gujarat
Judgment Date: 10 April 2023
Date of the Judgment: 10 April 2023
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1045-1046/2023 (Arising out of SLP (CRL) Nos. 011196-011197/2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can an accused person claim default bail if they were not physically present when a court first granted an extension to the investigation period? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a criminal appeal, examining the balance between the rights of the accused and the procedural requirements of criminal investigations. This case clarifies the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) concerning statutory bail.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, delivered the judgment, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion. The court analyzed previous judgments to determine whether the accused’s absence during the initial extension of the investigation period automatically entitles them to default bail.
Case Background
The appellant, Qamar Ghani Usmani, was arrested on January 29, 2022. The 90-day period for filing a charge sheet, as per Section 167 of the CrPC, was set to expire on April 29, 2022. On April 22, 2022, the Investigating Officer (IO) requested a 30-day extension to complete the investigation, which the Trial Court granted. The appellant was informed of this extension on April 23, 2022. Subsequently, on May 22, 2022, the IO requested another extension, which was also granted by the Trial Court. Notably, the appellant was present in court when this second extension was granted.
Prior to the second extension, on May 10, 2022, the appellant filed a default bail application. The appellant argued that the initial extension granted on April 22, 2022, was invalid because he was not present in court at the time. Therefore, he claimed that his right to default bail had accrued as the 90-day period had expired without a valid extension. The Trial Court rejected this application, and the High Court of Gujarat upheld the rejection, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 29 January 2022 | Appellant arrested. |
| 22 April 2022 | Investigating Officer requests a 30-day extension for investigation. Trial Court grants the extension. Appellant not present. |
| 23 April 2022 | Appellant informed of the first extension. |
| 29 April 2022 | Original 90-day period for filing charge sheet expires. |
| 10 May 2022 | Appellant files default bail application. |
| 22 May 2022 | Investigating Officer requests a further extension. Trial Court grants the extension. Appellant present. |
| 23 September 2022 | High Court of Gujarat dismisses the appeals. |
| 10 April 2023 | Supreme Court of India dismisses the appeals. |
Arguments
The appellant’s counsel, Shri Mehmood Pracha, argued that the first extension of the investigation period was illegal because the appellant was not present in court when it was granted. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 and Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410, which, he contended, mandated the presence of the accused during consideration of such extensions. He further argued that the judgment relied upon by the High Court had been set aside by the Supreme Court in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1290.
The appellant’s counsel also cited Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs. State (2012) 12 SCC 1, arguing that an extension of the investigation period cannot have retrospective effect once the initial order is set aside. He contended that the failure to produce the accused at the time of the first extension rendered it invalid, thus entitling the appellant to statutory bail.
Shri Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General, representing the State of Gujarat, argued that the decision in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) had been diluted by the subsequent judgment in Sanjay Dutt (supra). He submitted that Sanjay Dutt (supra) clarified that only the production of the accused before the court is required, not a written notice or a hearing on the reasons for the extension. He also argued that the decision in Jigar (supra) required reconsideration by a larger bench, as it had not taken into account Section 465 of the CrPC and the law laid down in Rambeer Shokeen vs. State (2018) 4 SCC 405.
The Solicitor General further argued that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation, particularly during the extension of the investigation period, citing Narender G. Goel vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65. He also pointed out that the appellant was informed of the first extension on April 23, 2022, but did not challenge it until filing the default bail application on May 10, 2022. He further noted that the appellant did not disclose the first extension in the default bail application and was present when the second extension was granted on May 22, 2022, without raising any objections to the first extension.
Summary of Arguments
| Appellant’s Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
|
✓ The first extension was illegal as the appellant was not present in court. ✓ Relied on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) and Sanjay Dutt (supra) requiring the accused’s presence. ✓ The judgment relied upon by the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court in Jigar (supra). ✓ Citing Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi (supra), argued that extensions cannot be retrospective. ✓ Failure to produce the accused renders the extension invalid, entitling him to statutory bail. |
✓ Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) was diluted by Sanjay Dutt (supra). ✓ Sanjay Dutt (supra) requires only the production of the accused, not a written notice. ✓ Jigar (supra) needs reconsideration as it did not consider Section 465 of CrPC and Rambeer Shokeen (supra). ✓ The accused has no right to be heard during the investigation or extension of investigation period, citing Narender G. Goel (supra). ✓ The appellant was informed of the extension but did not challenge it promptly. ✓ The appellant did not disclose the first extension in the default bail application. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether, in the given facts and circumstances, the appellant is entitled to statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC on the ground that the accused was not present when the Trial Court granted the extension of time for completing the investigation.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellant is entitled to statutory bail because he was not present when the initial extension for investigation was granted? | The Court held that despite the appellant not being present during the first extension, he was not entitled to statutory bail due to subsequent events and his conduct. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 – The Court initially held that notice to the accused is required before granting an extension of time for investigation.
- Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410 – A Constitution Bench clarified that while the accused’s presence is required during the extension of investigation period, a separate notice is not mandatory.
- Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs. State (2012) 12 SCC 1 – The Court held that an extension of the investigation period cannot be given retrospective effect.
- Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1290 – This case reiterated that failure to produce the accused at the time of extension renders the extension invalid.
- Rambeer Shokeen vs. State (2018) 4 SCC 405 – The Court held that an application for extension of time for investigation must be decided before considering default bail.
- Narender G. Goel vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 – The Court held that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation or during the extension of investigation period.
- Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – This section deals with the procedure when investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours and provides for default bail.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How the Court Viewed It |
|---|---|
| Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 (Supreme Court of India) | The Court noted that this view was not accepted by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt (supra). |
| Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410 (Supreme Court of India) | The Court followed this authority, noting that the accused’s presence is required, but not a separate notice. |
| Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs. State (2012) 12 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India) | The Court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable to the present facts as the extension was not challenged. |
| Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1290 (Supreme Court of India) | The Court acknowledged this authority but distinguished it based on the specific facts of the case. |
| Rambeer Shokeen vs. State (2018) 4 SCC 405 (Supreme Court of India) | The Court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable to the present facts. |
| Narender G. Goel vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 (Supreme Court of India) | The Court upheld that the accused has no right to be heard during the investigation or extension of investigation period. |
| Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | The Court interpreted this section in the context of the cited authorities and the facts of the case. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that while the presence of the accused is required at the time of granting an extension for investigation, the appellant was not entitled to default bail in the present case due to the specific facts and circumstances.
The Court noted that the appellant was informed of the first extension on April 23, 2022, but did not challenge it. Instead, he applied for default bail on May 10, 2022, without disclosing the extension. Moreover, the second extension was granted on May 22, 2022, in the presence of the accused, who did not raise any grievance regarding the first extension.
The Court emphasized that the chargesheet was filed within the extended period. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to statutory bail.
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the first extension was illegal due to his absence. | The Court acknowledged the appellant’s absence but held that the subsequent events and conduct of the appellant disentitled him from default bail. |
| Appellant’s reliance on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) and Sanjay Dutt (supra). | The Court clarified that while the accused’s presence is required, a separate notice is not mandatory, as per Sanjay Dutt (supra). |
| Appellant’s reliance on Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi (supra). | The Court distinguished the case as the facts were different, where the extension was challenged. |
| Respondent’s submission that Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) was diluted by Sanjay Dutt (supra). | The Court agreed that Sanjay Dutt (supra) clarified the position of law, requiring the presence of the accused but not a separate notice. |
| Respondent’s submission that Jigar (supra) needs reconsideration. | The Court did not express an opinion on the need for reconsideration but distinguished the case based on the facts. |
| Respondent’s submission that the accused has no right to be heard during the investigation or extension of investigation period. | The Court upheld this submission based on Narender G. Goel (supra). |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed It |
|---|---|
| Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 | The Court noted that the view taken in this case regarding notice to the accused was not accepted by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt (supra). |
| Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410 | The Court followed this authority, clarifying that while the accused’s presence is required, a separate notice is not mandatory. |
| Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs. State (2012) 12 SCC 1 | The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the present facts as the extension was not challenged. |
| Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1290 | The Court acknowledged this authority but distinguished it based on the specific facts of the case, where the accused did not challenge the extension. |
| Rambeer Shokeen vs. State (2018) 4 SCC 405 | The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the present facts. |
| Narender G. Goel vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 | The Court upheld that the accused has no right to be heard during the investigation or extension of investigation period. |
What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the specific sequence of events and the appellant’s conduct. The Court emphasized that despite the initial procedural lapse of not having the accused present during the first extension, the following factors weighed against granting default bail:
- The appellant was informed of the extension on the very next day, April 23, 2022.
- The appellant did not challenge the extension or raise any grievance about its legality.
- The appellant filed the default bail application on May 10, 2022, after the extension was already in place, and without disclosing the extension.
- The second extension was granted on May 22, 2022, in the presence of the appellant, who still did not challenge the first extension.
- The chargesheet was filed within the extended period.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Compliance | 30% |
| Accused’s Conduct | 40% |
| Filing of Chargesheet | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the appellant’s conduct and the timeline of events. While legal principles were considered, the specific facts played a more significant role in the final decision.
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- The presence of the accused is necessary when a court considers extending the investigation period under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
- While the absence of the accused during the initial extension may be a procedural irregularity, it does not automatically entitle them to default bail if they are informed of the extension and do not challenge it promptly.
- The conduct of the accused, such as failing to disclose the extension in a default bail application and not challenging it when present during a subsequent extension, can be a significant factor in denying default bail.
- Filing of the chargesheet within the extended period is a crucial factor in denying default bail.
Directions
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals but allowed the appellant to apply for regular bail, which may be considered in accordance with the law and on its own merits.
Development of Law
This judgment reinforces the principle that while the presence of the accused is required during the extension of the investigation period, it is not an absolute requirement that automatically leads to default bail if violated. The Court emphasized that the conduct of the accused, subsequent events, and the filing of the chargesheet within the extended period are critical factors to be considered. This ruling clarifies the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the CrPC and provides a balanced approach between protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant was not entitled to statutory bail. The Court clarified that while the presence of the accused is required during the extension of the investigation period, the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including the appellant’s conduct and the filing of the chargesheet within the extended period, justified the denial of default bail. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance while also considering the practical realities of criminal investigations.