LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an accused is entitled to statutory bail if they were not present when the trial court granted the first extension of time for investigation.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Qamar Ghani Usmani vs. The State of Gujarat
[Judgment Date]: April 10, 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: April 10, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 337
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can an accused person claim default bail if the court extended the investigation period without ensuring their presence, even if they were informed of the extension the next day? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving an accused who was not present when the initial extension of the investigation period was granted. This judgment clarifies the procedural requirements for extending investigation periods and their impact on an accused’s right to default 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 examined the circumstances under which an accused person can claim statutory bail due to procedural lapses in extending the investigation period.
Case Background
The appellant, Qamar Ghani Usmani, was arrested on January 29, 2022. According to Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), the 90-day period for completing the investigation was set to expire on April 29, 2022. On April 22, 2022, the Investigating Officer (IO) requested an extension to complete the investigation, which the Trial Court granted, extending the period by 30 days. The accused was informed of this extension on April 23, 2022.
Subsequently, on May 22, 2022, the IO sought another extension, which the Trial Court granted on the same day in the presence of the accused. However, on May 10, 2022, the accused had already filed a default bail application, arguing that the first extension granted on April 22, 2022, was invalid because he was not present during the proceedings. The accused contended that this procedural lapse entitled him to default bail. The Trial Court rejected this application, a decision upheld by the High Court of Gujarat.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 29, 2022 | Accused, Qamar Ghani Usmani, was arrested. |
| April 22, 2022 | Investigating Officer (IO) requested a 30-day extension for investigation. Trial Court granted the extension. Accused was not present. |
| April 23, 2022 | Accused was informed about the first extension. |
| April 29, 2022 | 90-day period for investigation expired. |
| May 10, 2022 | Accused filed a default bail application, claiming the first extension was illegal. |
| May 22, 2022 | IO requested a second extension, which was granted by the Trial Court in the presence of the accused. |
Arguments
The appellant, represented by Shri Mehmood Pracha, argued that the first extension granted on April 22, 2022, was illegal because the accused was not present in court. He cited 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 emphasized the necessity of either notice or the presence of the accused during the consideration of extension requests. The appellant contended that the absence of the accused during the first extension entitled him to default bail as the 90-day period had expired.
The appellant also relied on Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs. State (2012) 12 SCC 1, arguing that an extension of the investigation period cannot be granted retrospectively after the initial order has been set aside. Additionally, he cited the recent judgment in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1290, which reiterated that failure to produce the accused during an extension of the investigation period renders the extension invalid, entitling the accused to statutory bail.
Shri Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General, representing the State of Gujarat, countered that the ruling in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur had been diluted by the subsequent judgment in Sanjay Dutt. He argued that Sanjay Dutt clarified that the accused’s presence, not a written notice, is sufficient during extension considerations. He also argued that the decision in Jigar requires reconsideration by a larger bench, as it failed to consider Section 465 of the Cr.PC and the law laid down in Rambeer Shokeen vs. State (2018) 4 SCC 405, which states that default bail is only applicable after the rejection of an extension application or if the chargesheet is not filed within the prescribed time.
The respondent further argued that the accused has no right to be heard during the investigation stage, particularly during the extension of the investigation period, citing Narender G. Goel vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65. Moreover, the respondent highlighted that the accused was informed of the first extension on April 23, 2022, but did not challenge it until May 10, 2022, and also did not disclose the extension when applying for default bail. The respondent also pointed out that the second extension was granted in the presence of the accused, without any grievance raised regarding the first extension.
Submissions
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of First Extension |
|
|
| Entitlement to Default Bail |
|
|
| Right to be Heard |
|
|
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 Cr.PC 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
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellant is entitled to statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC on the ground that the accused was not present when the Trial Court granted the extension of time for completing the investigation. | The Court held that despite the procedural lapse of not having the accused present during the first extension, the accused was not entitled to default bail. This was because the accused was informed of the extension the next day, did not challenge it, and applied for default bail after the extension was already in effect. The Court also noted that a second extension was granted in the presence of the accused. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How the Authority was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 | Supreme Court of India | Notice to the accused is required before granting an extension of time for investigation. | The court noted that this view was not accepted by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt. |
| Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410 | Supreme Court of India | Presence of the accused is sufficient at the time of granting an extension, and written notice is not mandatory. | The court followed this authority to hold that the presence of the accused is necessary but the requirement of notice is not mandatory. |
| Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs. State (2012) 12 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Extension of the period of investigation cannot have retrospective effect. | The court distinguished this case, noting that the facts were different as the extension was challenged and set aside before a fresh extension was sought. |
| Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1290 | Supreme Court of India | Failure to produce the accused at the time of extension of the investigation period renders the extension bad in law. | The court noted that the decision in Jigar was not applicable to the facts of the case at hand. |
| Rambeer Shokeen vs. State (2018) 4 SCC 405 | Supreme Court of India | Accused is entitled to default bail only after rejection of the extension application or if the chargesheet is not filed within the prescribed time. | The court distinguished this case, noting that the facts were different as the application for extension was already granted. |
| Narender G. Goel vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 | Supreme Court of India | Accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation, particularly during the extension of the investigation period. | The court cited this case to support the argument that the accused is not entitled to be heard during the extension of the investigation period. |
| Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) | Indian Parliament | Provides for the procedure to be followed when investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours and the maximum period of judicial custody. | The court used this provision to determine the statutory period for investigation and the conditions for default bail. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that while the presence of the accused is necessary at the time of granting an extension of the investigation period, the accused in this case was not entitled to default bail.
The Court observed that the accused was informed of the first extension on April 23, 2022, and did not challenge it. The accused applied for default bail on May 10, 2022, after the first extension was already in effect. The court also noted that the second extension was granted in the presence of the accused.
The court distinguished the case from Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi and Rambeer Shokeen, noting that the facts of those cases were different.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to deny default bail to the accused.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the first extension was illegal due to the absence of the accused. | The Court acknowledged the procedural lapse but held that it did not automatically entitle the accused to default bail given the specific circumstances. |
| Appellant’s submission that the accused had an indefeasible right to default bail after 90 days. | The Court rejected this submission because the extension was already in effect when the default bail application was filed, and the accused did not challenge the extension in time. |
| Respondent’s submission that the accused had no right to be heard at the stage of investigation. | The Court agreed that the accused does not have a right to be heard at the stage of investigation, but the accused’s presence is required during extension of investigation. |
| Respondent’s submission that the accused did not challenge the first extension in time. | The Court accepted this submission, noting that the accused was informed of the extension on April 23, 2022, but did not challenge it until May 10, 2022. |
The following table shows how the authorities were viewed by the court:
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 | The court acknowledged the ruling but noted that it was not accepted by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt. |
| Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410 | The court followed this ruling, stating that the presence of the accused is necessary but the requirement of notice is not mandatory. |
| Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs. State (2012) 12 SCC 1 | The court distinguished this case, noting that the facts were different. |
| Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1290 | The court noted that the decision in Jigar was not applicable to the facts of the case at hand. |
| Rambeer Shokeen vs. State (2018) 4 SCC 405 | The court distinguished this case, noting that the facts were different. |
| Narender G. Goel vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 | The court cited this case to support the argument that the accused is not entitled to be heard during the extension of the investigation period. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the specific facts of the case. The court acknowledged the procedural lapse of not having the accused present during the first extension of the investigation period. However, the court emphasized that the accused was informed of the extension the very next day and did not challenge it. The fact that the accused applied for default bail only after the extension was already in effect, and that a second extension was granted in the accused’s presence, weighed heavily against the accused’s claim for statutory bail.
The court also considered the principle that an accused does not have a right to be heard at the stage of investigation, but the accused’s presence is required during extension of investigation. The court’s reasoning suggests a balancing act between ensuring procedural fairness and preventing the abuse of the default bail provision.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Compliance (Accused not present during first extension) | 20% |
| Accused Informed of Extension and Did Not Challenge | 40% |
| Accused applied for default bail after the extension was already in effect | 30% |
| Second extension was granted in the presence of the accused. | 10% |
The following table shows the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
✓ The presence of the accused is necessary when a court considers extending the investigation period.
✓ However, if the accused is informed of the extension shortly after it is granted and does not challenge it promptly, they may not be entitled to default bail.
✓ An application for default bail must be made before the period of extension is in effect.
✓ Accused cannot claim default bail if the chargesheet is filed within the extended period.
This judgment clarifies that while procedural lapses in extending investigation periods are serious, they do not automatically entitle an accused to default bail if the accused is informed of the extension and fails to challenge it in a timely manner, and if the chargesheet is filed within the extended time. The decision underscores the importance of timely legal challenges and the need for accused persons to remain vigilant about court proceedings.
Directions
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals but allowed the accused to apply for regular bail, which may be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the presence of the accused is necessary during the extension of the investigation period, the accused is not entitled to default bail if they are informed of the extension shortly after it is granted and do not challenge it promptly, and if the chargesheet is filed within the extended period. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the application of the principles laid down in Sanjay Dutt and other cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the denial of default bail to the appellant, Qamar Ghani Usmani, despite the procedural irregularity of the accused not being present during the first extension of the investigation period. The court emphasized that the accused was informed of the extension the next day, did not challenge it, and applied for default bail after the extension was already in effect. This judgment underscores the importance of timely legal challenges and clarifies the circumstances under which an accused can claim default bail.