Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a reference made by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court while hearing a bail application filed by two accused persons, Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and Salamabegum Nijamuddin Khan, who were arrested on 7th January 2006 for an offence under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (kidnapping), which is punishable with imprisonment for life. The accused sought default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on the ground that the prosecution failed to file a charge sheet within 60 days from the date of arrest. The Single Judge noted a conflict among decisions of other Single Judges of the same court: some held that for offences punishable with life imprisonment, the 90-day period under clause (ii) of Section 167(2)(a) applies, while others held that only 60 days under clause (i) apply. Consequently, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for an authoritative ruling. The Division Bench examined the language of Section 167(2)(a), which prescribes two periods: 60 days for offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years (clause i), and 90 days for offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years (clause ii). The court reasoned that life imprisonment is a term of imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life, which is certainly not less than ten years. Therefore, an offence punishable with life imprisonment falls within clause (ii), entitling the prosecution to 90 days to file the charge sheet. The court overruled the contrary view and held that the 90-day period applies. The Division Bench did not decide the individual bail application but answered the reference and directed the matter to be placed before the appropriate Single Judge for disposal in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 167(2)(a)(i) vs (ii) CrPC - Conflict Resolution - The issue was whether an offence punishable with imprisonment for life (but not death) falls under clause (i) (60 days) or clause (ii) (90 days) of Section 167(2)(a) CrPC - The Division Bench held that the phrase 'punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years' in clause (ii) includes offences punishable with life imprisonment, as life imprisonment is a term of not less than ten years - Therefore, the 90-day period applies - The court resolved the conflict among single judges in favour of the view that clause (ii) applies (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) (60 days) or Section 167(2)(a)(ii) (90 days) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 apply for grant of default bail when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life but not expressly mentioned in the section.
Final Decision
The Division Bench answered the reference by holding that Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 applies to offences punishable with imprisonment for life, as life imprisonment is a term of not less than ten years. The matter was directed to be placed before the appropriate Single Judge for disposal of the bail application in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Default bail
- Section 167(2) CrPC
- period of investigation
- 60 days vs 90 days
- life imprisonment
- cognizable offence
