Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a reference concerning the computation of the remand period for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The background involved two respondents arrested on 14-05-2020 for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and remanded on the same day. They applied for default bail on 13-07-2020, contending that the 60-day period expired on 12-07-2020, a Sunday. The Special Judge denied bail by excluding the date of remand, but the Bombay High Court granted bail by including it, leading to appeals. The core legal issue was whether the date of remand should be included or excluded when calculating the 60/90-day period for default bail. The prosecution argued for exclusion based on precedents like State of M.P. v. Rustam, while the accused argued for inclusion based on Chaganti Satyanarayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The court noted a divergence of opinion in case law, with some judgments favoring exclusion and others inclusion, creating a judicial conundrum. A two-judge bench referred the issue to a three-judge bench for resolution to ensure uniform application of the law. The court emphasized the fundamental right to personal liberty and the statutory nature of default bail. The analysis involved reviewing conflicting precedents and the need to settle the law authoritatively. The decision was to answer the reference, but the final holding on inclusion or exclusion was not resolved in the provided text, as the matter was pending before the larger bench. The court highlighted the importance of protecting accused rights against unlawful incarceration.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Computation of Remand Period - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2) - The Supreme Court considered whether the day of remand should be included or excluded when calculating the 60/90-day period for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. The Court noted conflicting precedents and referred the issue to a three-judge bench for resolution, emphasizing the fundamental right to personal liberty and the need for uniform application of law. Held that the matter requires authoritative determination to protect accused rights (Paras 1-11). B) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Factual Background - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2) - The respondents were arrested on 14-05-2020 for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and remanded on the same day. They applied for default bail on 13-07-2020, claiming the 60-day period expired on 12-07-2020. The Special Judge denied bail by excluding the remand date, but the High Court granted bail by including it, leading to the appeal. The Court outlined the factual dispute over computation (Paras 12-16). C) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Conflicting Precedents - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2) - The prosecution relied on State of M.P. v. Rustam & Ors., Ravi Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, and M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence, which exclude the remand date. The accused relied on Chaganti Satyanarayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI v. Anupam J Kulkarni, State v. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat, and State of Maharashtra v. Bharati Chandmal Varma, which include it. The Court identified a judicial conundrum requiring resolution by a larger bench (Paras 7-10). D) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Arguments of Parties - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2) - The appellants argued for excluding the remand date or applying Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to extend the deadline from Sunday to Monday. The respondents argued for including the remand date based on Chaganti and other precedents. The Court summarized the contentions without resolving them, pending the reference (Paras 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the date of remand is to be included or excluded for computing the 60/90 day period under proviso (a) of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for entitlement to default bail
Final Decision
The Supreme Court referred the issue to a three-judge bench for resolution due to conflicting precedents, without final holding on inclusion or exclusion in the provided text
Law Points
- Personal liberty is a fundamental right
- default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is a statutory right
- computation of remand period includes the day of remand
- conflicting precedents require resolution by a larger bench
- the General Clauses Act
- 1897 applies to extend deadlines falling on holidays
