Bombay High Court Allows Default Bail to Accused in MPID Act Case Due to Chargesheet Not Taken Cognizance Within 90 Days. The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrues when the chargesheet is not taken cognizance within the prescribed period, even if physically filed earlier.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 11
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Wasudeo Shrawan Kamble, was arrested on 13 July 2020 in connection with Crime No. 427/2020 registered at Police Station Ballarshah, District Chandrapur, for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. He was produced before the jurisdictional court on 14 July 2020 and remanded to custody. The 90-day period for completion of investigation, excluding the date of remand, expired on 12 October 2020. On 12 October 2020 at 11:10 p.m., the applicant filed an application seeking default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, asserting that the investigation had not been completed within the prescribed period. The prosecution opposed the application, claiming that the chargesheet had been filed on 7 October 2020, before the expiry of the 90-day period. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, rejected the bail application on 14 October 2020, noting that the chargesheet was submitted on 7 October 2020 and was verified and registered on 12 and 13 October 2020 due to COVID-19-related directions. The applicant challenged this order before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the record and found that while the chargesheet was physically filed on 7 October 2020, it was not taken cognizance by the court until after 12 October 2020. The court held that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an indefeasible right that accrues if the chargesheet is not filed and cognizance taken within the prescribed period. Since the chargesheet was not taken cognizance before the expiry of 90 days, and the applicant had applied for bail before cognizance was taken, the right had accrued. The court also noted that the COVID-19 directions did not extend the statutory period. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application, set aside the order of the trial court, and directed that the applicant be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may impose.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC - Indefeasible Right - The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrues if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period (90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for not less than 10 years) and the accused applies for bail before the chargesheet is filed. The court held that the chargesheet must be filed and cognizance taken before the expiry of the period to defeat the right. In this case, the chargesheet was filed on 7.10.2020 but was not taken cognizance until after 12.10.2020, and the applicant applied for bail on 12.10.2020 at 11:10 p.m. The court held that the right had accrued and the applicant was entitled to default bail. (Paras 4-8)

B) Criminal Procedure - Computation of Period - Section 167(2) CrPC - Exclusion of Date of Remand - The period of 90 days for investigation is computed excluding the date of first remand. The applicant was arrested on 13.7.2020 and produced on 14.7.2020; the 90-day period expired on 12.10.2020. The court clarified that the day of remand is excluded. (Para 3.2)

C) Criminal Procedure - Filing of Chargesheet - COVID-19 Directions - The directions issued by the High Court regarding filing of chargesheets during the COVID-19 pandemic do not extend the statutory period under Section 167(2) CrPC. The chargesheet must be filed and cognizance taken within the prescribed period to prevent the accrual of the right to default bail. (Para 7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 when the chargesheet was filed before the expiry of 90 days but was not taken cognizance by the court within that period?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the application, set aside the order dated 14.10.2020 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, and directed that the applicant be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may impose.

Law Points

  • Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an indefeasible right if chargesheet not filed within prescribed period
  • Filing of chargesheet before expiry of period but not taken cognizance does not defeat right
  • Period of 90 days computed excluding date of remand
  • COVID-19 directions for filing chargesheets do not extend statutory period
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 116

Criminal Application (APL) 820 of 2020

2021-02-23

Rohit B. Deo

Mr. Mahesh Rai (for applicant), Mr. V.A. Thakre (APP for non-applicant)

Wasudeo s/o. Shrawan Kamble

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application challenging rejection of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC

Remedy Sought

Applicant sought default bail on the ground that investigation was not completed within 90 days

Filing Reason

Applicant was arrested on 13.7.2020 and the 90-day period expired on 12.10.2020; chargesheet was filed on 7.10.2020 but not taken cognizance until after 12.10.2020

Previous Decisions

Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur rejected the bail application on 14.10.2020

Issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC when the chargesheet was filed before the expiry of 90 days but not taken cognizance within that period? Whether the COVID-19 directions for filing chargesheets extend the statutory period under Section 167(2) CrPC?

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant argued that the 90-day period expired on 12.10.2020 and the chargesheet was not taken cognizance before that, so default bail should be granted. Prosecution argued that the chargesheet was filed on 7.10.2020, within the 90-day period, and the delay in registration was due to COVID-19 directions.

Ratio Decidendi

The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an indefeasible right that accrues if the chargesheet is not filed and cognizance taken within the prescribed period. Filing of the chargesheet before the expiry of the period is not sufficient; cognizance must be taken before the period expires. COVID-19 directions do not extend the statutory period.

Judgment Excerpts

The right to default or compulsive bail under section 167(2) of the Code is an indefeasible right which accrues in favour of the accused if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period and the accused applies for bail before the chargesheet is filed. The chargesheet was as a fact submitted on 7.10.2020 and was verified and registered on 12.10.2020 and 13.10.2020, respectively, in view of the directions issued, as a measure to control and counter the COVID-19 pandemic. The right to default bail under section 167(2) of the Code is an indefeasible right which accrues in favour of the accused if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period and the accused applies for bail before the chargesheet is filed.

Procedural History

The applicant was arrested on 13.7.2020 and produced before the court on 14.7.2020. The 90-day period expired on 12.10.2020. On 12.10.2020 at 11:10 p.m., the applicant filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. The prosecution opposed on 13.10.2020, stating chargesheet was filed on 7.10.2020. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur rejected the bail application on 14.10.2020. The applicant then filed the present criminal application before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201, 109, 34
  • Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act): 3, 4
  • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC): 167(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Default Bail to Accused in MPID Act Case Due to Chargesheet Not Taken Cognizance Within 90 Days. The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrues when the chargesheet is not taken cognizance within the prescribed p...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Discharge Application in Cheque Dishonour Case — Defect in Complaint Verification Curable. Procedural Defect Not Fatal Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.