Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(emphasis supplied) It will thus be seen that once an accused person has been released on bail by the thrust of the proviso to Section 167(2), the mere fact that subsequent to his release a challan has been filed is not sufficient to cancel his bail. In such a situation his bail can be cancelled only if considerations germane to cancellation of bail under Section 437(5) or for that matter Section 439(2) exist. That is because the release of a person under Section 167(2) is equated to his release under Chapter XXXIII of the Code.

10. On this line of reasoning the learned Judge upheld the order of the High Court and refused to interfere. It may here be mentioned that this Court's decision in Bashir's case was not placed before the learned Judge.

11. On a conjoint reading of Sections 57 and 167 of the Code it is clear that the legislative object was to ensure speedy investigation after a person has been taken in custody. It expects that the investigation should be completed within 24 hours and if this is not possible within 15 days and failing that within the time stipulated in Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code. The law expects that the investigation must be completed with despatch and the role of the Magistrate is to over-see the course of investigation and to prevent abuse of the law by the investigating agency. As stated earlier, the legislative history shows that before the introduction of the proviso to Section 167(2) the maximum time allowed to the investigating agency was 15 days under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 failing which the accused could be enlarged on bail. From experience this was found to be insufficient particularly in complex cases and hence the proviso was added to enable the Magistrate to detain the accused in custody for a period exceeding 15 days but not exceeding the outer limit fixed under the proviso (a) to that sub-section. We may here mention that the period prescribed by the proviso has been enlarged by State amendments and wherever there is such enlargement, the proviso will have to be read accordingly. The purpose and object of providing for the release of the accused under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 on the failure of the investigating agency completing the investigation within the extended time allowed by the proviso was to instill a sense of urgency in the invest ting agency to complete the investigation promptly and within the statutory time-frame. The deeming fiction of correlating the release on bail under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 with Chapter XXXIII, i.e. Sections 437 and 439 of the Code, was to treat the order as one passed under the latter provisions. Once the order of release is by fiction of law an order passed under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) it follows as a natural consequence that the said order can be cancelled under Sub-section (5) of Section 437 or Sub-section (2) of Section 439 on considerations relevant for cancellation of an order thereunder. As stated in Raghubir Singh's case the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of invistigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.

14. We sum up as under:

The provisions of the Code, in particular Sections 57 and 167, manifest the legislative anxiety that once a persons' liberty has been interfered with by the police arresting him without a court's order or a warrant, the investigation must be carried out with utmost urgency and completed within the maximum period allowed by the proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code. It must be realised that the said proviso was introduced in the Code by way of enlargement of time for which the arrested accused could be kept in custody. Therefore, the prosecuting agency must realise that if it fails to show a sense of urgency in the investigation of the case and omits or defaults to file a charge sheet within the time prescribed, the accused would be entitled to be released on bail and the order passed to that effect under Section 167(2) would be an order under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) of the Code. Since Section 167 does not empower cancellation of the bail, the power to cancel the bail can only be traced to Section 437(5) or 439(2) of the Code. The bail can then be cancelled on considerations which are valid for cancellation of bail granted under Section 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) of the Code. The fact that the bail was earlier rejected or that it was secured by the thrust of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code then recedes in the background. Once the accused has been released on bail his liberty cannot be interfered with lightly i.e. on the ground that the prosecution has subsequently submitted a charge-sheet. Such a view would introduce a sense of complacency in the investigating agency and would destroy the very purpose of instilling a sense of urgency expected by Sections 57 and 167(2) of the Code. We are, therefore, of the view that once an accused is released on bail under Section 167(2) he cannot be taken back in custody merely on the filing of a charge-sheet but there must exist special reasons for so doing besides the fact that the charge-sheet reveals the commission of a non-bailable crime. The ratio of Rajnikant's case to the extent it is inconsistent herewith does not, with respect, state the law correctly.

23. The mere circumstance that Section 167(2) ordains that every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter does not ipso facto mean that the bail order assumes the content and character of bail orders on merit, of the-kind conceived of in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 437 or Sub-section (1) of Section 439 of the Code. The deeming requirement of Section 167(2) puts the release on bail of such person as if under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII but only for the purposes of that Chapter. In other words, it means that by this fiction the provision is to be read as a part of Chapter XXXIII so that it invites the purposes of that Chapter such as filling of bonds, provision of sureties etc., as also permitting cancellation of bail. It is on the thrust of such inclusion that cancellation under Section 437(5) can be attempted as if fictionally the bail order had been passed under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 437 but not on considerations as if the bail order was on merit. Fiction of this kind cannot be permitted to go to the length of converting an order of bail not on merit as if passed on merit.