What is default bail in India?
The well settled legal position that the right of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not only a statutory right but is a right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is an indefeasible right, nonetheless it is enforceable only prior to the filing of the challan or the chargesheet, and does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not availed of.
Read: 9 Ways To Make A Judge To Rule In Your Favor
Once the challan has been filed, the question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only with reference to the merits of the case under the provisions relating to grant of bail to the accused after the filing of the challan [Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Kapil Wadhawan & Anr – Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11775 Of 2023) – January, 24th 2024 – 2024 INSC 58].
Object of Default Bail.
A bare perusal of the abovementioned statement of objects strongly indicates that Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C was enacted to ensure that the investigating agency completes the investigation within the prescribed time limit, failing which no accused could be detained if they are willing to avail bail. This position was also laid emphasis on by a three-judge bench of this Court in the case of M. Ravindran Vs. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence- (2021) 2 SCC 485.
How to Calculate Default Bail.
We therefore declare that the stipulated 60/90 ay remand period under Section 167 CrPC ought to be computed from the date when a Magistrate authorizes remand. If the first day of remand is excluded, the remand period, as we notice will extend beyond the permitted 60/90 days’ period resulting in unauthorized detention beyond the period envisaged under Section 167 CrPC.
In cases where the chargesheet/final report is filed on or after the 61st/91st day, the accused in our considered opinion would be entitled to default bail [Enforcement Directorate, Government of India vs Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. Etc – Criminal Appeal Nos. 701-702 Of 2020 – March 27, 2023].
Oral Application is Enough for Default Bail
In fact in the majority judgment of this Court it has been held that an oral application for grant of default bail would suffice [See. Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. 6 State of Assam – (2017) 15 SCC 67].
The consequences of the UAPA Act are drastic in punishment and in that context, it has been held not to be a mere statutory right but part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution of India [Fakhrey Alam vs The State of Uttar Pradesh – Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6181/2020) – March 15, 2021].
Police cannot File Incomplete Charge Sheet to Defeat Default Bail
In view of the above mentioned discussions, the issues framed by us stand answered as under:-
- Without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
- Such a chargesheet, if filed by an investigating authority without first completing the investigation, would not extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.
- The trial court, in such cases, cannot continue to remand an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without offering the arrested person default bail [RITU CHHABARIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 60 OF 2023 – 26th APRIL, 2023].
No Bar to Release the Accused in Default Bail even his Previous Regular Bail was Cancelled by the Court
Let us take another example. After ordering remand, initially for a period of 15 days of which 10 days is by way of police custody and 5 days by way of judicial custody, the Magistrate enlarges an accused on bail.
The High Court interferes with the order granting bail on the basis that the bail ought not to have been granted. Resultantly, the person who on the basis of the order of bail, has come out of jail custody, is put back into judicial custody or jail custody.
The order is one passed by the High Court. The order granting custody by the High Court cannot be treated as one which is not anchored in Section 167CrPC. Therefore, we would think that though the power is vested with the Magistrate to order remand by way of appropriate jurisdiction exercised by the superior courts, (it would, in fact, include the Court of Session acting under Section 439) the power under Section 167 could also be exercised by courts which are superior to the Magistrate.
Therefore, while ordinarily, the Magistrate is the original court which would exercise power to remand under Section 167, the exercise of power by the superior courts which would result in custody being ordered ordinarily (police or judicial custody) by the superior courts which includes the High Court, would indeed be the custody for the purpose of calculating the period within which the charge-sheet must be filed, failing which the accused acquires the statutory right to default bail [Gautam Navlakha Vs. National Investigation Agency – (2022) 13 SCC 542 followed in Jaya Selvi … Petitioner/Defacto Complainant vs. 1. State By: The Station House Officer Elavanasoorkottai Police Station Kallakurichi District. … Respondent/Respondent 2. Amalameri … Respondent/Accused-1, Crl.O.P.No.18509 Of 2023 ,Dated On – 30, November 2023].