LEGAL ISSUE: Calculation of the period for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Enforcement Directorate, Government of India vs. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.
Judgment Date: 23 February 2021
Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2021
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 701-702 of 2020
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
When does the clock start ticking for default bail? The Supreme Court of India grappled with this crucial question in a case involving the Enforcement Directorate and two individuals accused of money laundering. The core issue revolves around how to calculate the period for granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Should the day of remand be included or excluded? This question has led to conflicting opinions in previous judgments, creating a legal puzzle that the Supreme Court now seeks to resolve.
The bench comprised of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Case Background
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested Kapil Wadhawan and another individual on May 14, 2020, for alleged offenses under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. They were remanded to custody on the same day. The ED filed a complaint via email on July 11, 2020, and a physical copy was submitted to the court on July 13, 2020 (a Monday). The respondents applied for default bail on July 13, 2020, arguing that the 60-day period for filing a charge sheet had expired on July 12, 2020 (a Sunday).
The respondents contended that the 60-day period, calculated from the date of their remand on May 14, 2020, ended on Sunday, July 12, 2020. They argued that since the charge sheet was filed on July 13, 2020, which is the 61st day, they were entitled to default bail. However, the Special Judge rejected their plea, calculating the 60-day period from May 15, 2020, thus excluding the date of remand.
The Bombay High Court overturned the Special Judge’s decision, ruling that the 60-day period should be calculated from the date of remand, and since the charge sheet was filed on the 61st day, the respondents were entitled to default bail.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 14, 2020 | Kapil Wadhawan and another individual were arrested and remanded to custody for alleged offenses under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. |
| July 11, 2020 | Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a complaint via email. |
| July 13, 2020 | Physical copy of the complaint was submitted to the court. The respondents applied for default bail, arguing that the 60-day period had expired. |
| August 20, 2020 | Bombay High Court granted default bail to the respondents. |
| September 3, 2020 | The Supreme Court stayed the Bombay High Court’s order. |
| February 23, 2021 | The Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger bench. |
Course of Proceedings
The Special Judge denied default bail to the respondents, calculating the 60-day period from May 15, 2020, thus excluding the date of first remand. The Bombay High Court reversed this decision, holding that the 60-day period should be computed from the date of remand, and since the charge sheet was filed on the 61st day, the respondents were entitled to default bail. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order on September 3, 2020.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This section deals with the procedure to be followed when an investigation cannot be completed within a specified time frame. It states that if the investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days, depending on the nature of the offense, the accused is entitled to be released on bail, known as “default bail”.
Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the CrPC states:
“the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; and if he does so, he shall record his reasons for so doing: Provided that no Magistrate shall authorise detention 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.”
Arguments
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court highlighted the conflicting interpretations of Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
Arguments by the Appellant (Enforcement Directorate):
- The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that the date of remand should be excluded while calculating the 60-day period for filing the charge sheet.
- They relied on the reasoning in cases like State of M.P. Vs. Rustom & Ors., Ravi Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar, and M. Ravindran Vs. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence, which held that the date of remand should be excluded while computing the period for investigation.
Arguments by the Respondents (Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.):
- The respondents argued that the date of remand should be included while calculating the 60-day period.
- They cited cases such as Chaganti Satyanarayan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI Vs. Anupam J Kulkarni, State Vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat, State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharati Chandmal Varma, and Pragyna Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra, which supported the inclusion of the remand date.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Calculation of Default Bail Period |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue framed by the Supreme Court is:
✓ Whether while computing the period of 90 days or 60 days as contemplated in Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) of the CrPC, the day of remand is to be included or excluded, for considering a claim for default bail.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with the Issue |
|---|---|
| Whether the day of remand should be included or excluded for calculating default bail period under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of CrPC? | The Court acknowledged the conflicting views on this issue in previous judgments and referred the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions to address the issue of calculating the default bail period.
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of M.P. Vs. Rustom & Ors. 1 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the appellant to support the exclusion of the date of remand. | Computation of the period for investigation. |
| Ravi Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar 2 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the appellant to support the exclusion of the date of remand. | Computation of the period for investigation. |
| M. Ravindran Vs. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence 3 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the appellant to support the exclusion of the date of remand. | Computation of the period for investigation. |
| Chaganti Satyanarayan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 4 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the respondent to support the inclusion of the date of remand. | Computation of the period for investigation. |
| CBI Vs. Anupam J Kulkarni 5 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the respondent to support the inclusion of the date of remand. | Computation of the period for investigation. |
| State Vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat 6 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the respondent to support the inclusion of the date of remand. | Computation of the period for investigation. |
| State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharati Chandmal Varma 7 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the respondent to support the inclusion of the date of remand. | Computation of the period for investigation. |
| Pragyna Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra 8 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the respondent to support the inclusion of the date of remand. | Computation of the period for investigation. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court acknowledged the conflicting views on whether the date of remand should be included or excluded when calculating the period for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the date of remand should be excluded. | The Court acknowledged that this view was supported by some previous judgments but noted the existence of conflicting views. |
| Respondent’s submission that the date of remand should be included. | The Court acknowledged that this view was supported by other previous judgments, leading to a conflict in the legal position. |
The Court noted that the earlier position of law was not considered in the latest decision by a 3-judge bench in M. Ravindran.
The Court referred the matter to a larger bench of at least three judges for an authoritative pronouncement to resolve the conflict in law.
The Court also directed that the matter be placed before a bench of three judges for consideration of the interim prayer for the respondents, as the High Court’s bail order was stayed.
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court noted that the cases cited by the appellant, such as State of M.P. Vs. Rustom & Ors., Ravi Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar and M. Ravindran Vs. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence, supported the exclusion of the date of remand.
- The Court also noted that the cases cited by the respondents, such as Chaganti Satyanarayan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI Vs. Anupam J Kulkarni, State Vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat, State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharati Chandmal Varma, and Pragyna Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra, supported the inclusion of the date of remand.
- The Court observed that the ratio in Chaganti Satyanarayan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and State Vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat was not brought to the notice of the 3-judge bench in M. Ravindran Vs. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence, which led to a contrary view.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench was primarily driven by the need to resolve the conflicting views on how to calculate the period for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. This conflict had created a legal conundrum, with different courts potentially making different decisions based on which judgment was brought to their attention or their own interpretation of the law.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for Uniformity | 40% |
| Conflict in Precedents | 30% |
| Importance of Personal Liberty | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court emphasized the importance of having a consistent and uniform application of the law across the country. The conflicting views were causing uncertainty and could lead to inconsistent outcomes in cases involving default bail. The Court also noted that the earlier position of law was not considered in the latest decision by a 3-judge bench in M. Ravindran.
Conflicting interpretations of Section 167(2) CrPC on whether to include or exclude the date of remand
Different High Courts following different precedents
Need for an authoritative pronouncement to resolve conflict
Matter referred to a larger bench of at least 3 judges
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has acknowledged a significant conflict in the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the CrPC regarding the calculation of the default bail period.
- The core issue is whether the date of remand should be included or excluded when computing the 60 or 90-day period for filing a charge sheet.
- Due to conflicting precedents, the matter has been referred to a larger bench for an authoritative decision.
- This referral highlights the need for a uniform and consistent application of the law across the country.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Registry to place all relevant documents before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constituting a bench of at least 3 judges to resolve the conflict in law. The Court also directed that the matter be placed before a bench of 3 judges for consideration of the interim prayer for the respondents.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that there is a conflict of views on whether the date of remand should be included or excluded when calculating the period for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The Supreme Court has referred the matter to a larger bench to settle this conflict. This decision does not change the previous position of law but highlights the need for a clear and consistent interpretation of the provision.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the conflict on calculating the default bail period to a larger bench underscores the importance of clarity and consistency in the application of criminal procedure laws. The resolution of this issue will have significant implications for the rights of the accused and the procedures followed by the courts across India.