Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(emphasis supplied)

65. In Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra 64, the accused, booked under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999,65 surrendered on 17.6.2000 and the 60 day period for filing chargesheet expired on 16.8.2000. He applied for default bail on 17.8.2000, but the Magistrate rejected it on the ground that Section 167(2) did not apply to MPID Act offences. The High Court later held that Section 167(2) does apply, but refused bail because the chargesheet had been filed on 30.8.2000, a day before the matter was heard on 31.8.2000. Relying on Sanjay Dutt (supra), the High Court held that the right to default bail does not survive once a charge-sheet is filed before the bail claim is decided. In this context, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Sections 57 and proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. are in consonance with the constitutional mandate of Article 22 (2) and that the statutory bail under Section 167 (2) proviso is a beneficial provision for curing the mischief of indefinitely prolonging the investigation which affects the liberty of a citizen. The following conclusions were culled out;

112. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh71, dealt with a case wherein the petitioner sought default bail in a case under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes 71 2022 SCC OnLine AP 2166 and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. His plea for default bail was rejected by trial Court on the ground that the police had filed chargesheet within the statutory period in compliance with Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., and the mere non-filing of the scientific expert's report did not entitle the petitioner to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. This Court upheld this view, holding that the charge sheet filed was complete in substance, being sufficient for the concerned Court to take cognizance of the offences.

137. The reliance on Fakhrey Alam(supra) is misplaced as it pertains to filing of chargesheet is filed after the filing of default bail application, after expiry of statutory period.

138. Coming to Akula Ravi Teja (supra), against the petitioner/ Accused No.3 therein a case was registered under Sections 143, 148, 188, 269, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and he was remanded to judicial custody on 05.06.2020. The police filed a preliminary charge sheet in Crime No.453 of 2020 on 28.08.2020. The Learned Magistrate returned the same with certain objections. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition seeking default bail on the ground that the police failed to complete the investigation within the statutory period of ninety days. The Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the charge sheet had been filed within time and that it had only been returned for compliance with some objections. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court. It was contended on behalf of the State that the Investigating Officer could not examine some witnesses because they were in judicial custody, and some crucial witnesses in the counter case were absconding; hence, there was no lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer. While dealing with the plea for default bail, Learned Single Judge categorically held that there was no legal flaw in the Magistrate's finding and held that if a charge sheet is filed within the statutory period, the fact that it is returned for compliance with technical objections does not confer a right on the accused to claim default bail.

142. In Tunde Gbaja (supra), the Delhi High Court dealt with a situation where the FIR contained several IPC offences requiring a 90-day investigation period, but the police filed a chargesheet only under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, which carried a 60-day limit. Although the agency could later file a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) CrPC, the learned Single Judge held that an incomplete or part chargesheet cannot defeat an accused's right to default bail. Since the chargesheet did not cover the IPC offences listed in the FIR, the filing could not be treated as a valid chargesheet for purposes of Section 167(2), the accused was held entitled to default bail.