Bombay High Court Allows Default Bail in Section 306 IPC Case — Offence Punishable Up to 10 Years Falls Under 60-Day Category Under Section 167(2) CrPC. The phrase 'imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years' means a minimum of ten years, not a maximum, so the 90-day period does not apply.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 89
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Shakil Khan Yasin Khan, was arrested on 25 September 2013 in connection with Crime No. 153/2013 registered at Deopur Police Station, Dhule, for an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule on 26 September 2013 and remanded to police custody from time to time. On 25 November 2013, the petitioner applied for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, claiming that 60 days had elapsed and investigation was incomplete. The Magistrate allowed the application, holding that the offence under Section 306 IPC is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years, thus falling under the 60-day category under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 167(2). The State challenged this order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, who reversed the decision, holding that the offence falls under the 90-day category under clause (i) because the punishment may extend to 10 years. The petitioner then filed a criminal writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the language of Section 167(2) CrPC, particularly the phrase 'imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years' in clause (i). It held that this phrase means a minimum of ten years, not a maximum. Since Section 306 IPC provides for imprisonment up to 10 years (maximum), it does not qualify as 'not less than ten years'. Therefore, the offence falls under clause (ii) (60 days). The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Sessions Judge's order, and restored the Magistrate's order granting default bail.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC - Interpretation of 'imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years' - The phrase 'not less than ten years' means a minimum of ten years, not a maximum. An offence punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years (maximum) does not qualify as 'not less than ten years' and falls under the 60-day category. Held that the Magistrate correctly applied the 60-day period for default bail (Paras 5-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years (but not less than 10 years) falls under clause (i) (90 days) or clause (ii) (60 days) of the first proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule dated 25.11.2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No.101/2013, and restored the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule granting default bail to the petitioner.

Law Points

  • Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC
  • Interpretation of 'imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years'
  • Offence under Section 306 IPC punishable up to 10 years falls under 60-day category
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 17 of 2014

2014-01-09

Abhay M. Thipsay

Mr. P.B. Pawar (for Petitioner), Mr. P.P. More (APP for Respondent)

Shakil Khan Yasin Khan

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition challenging cancellation of default bail

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought restoration of bail granted by Magistrate under Section 167(2) CrPC

Filing Reason

Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the default bail granted by Magistrate

Previous Decisions

Magistrate granted default bail on 25.11.2013; Additional Sessions Judge cancelled it on application by State

Issues

Whether an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years (maximum) falls under clause (i) (90 days) or clause (ii) (60 days) of the first proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that Section 306 IPC provides for imprisonment up to 10 years, not 'not less than ten years', so 60-day period applies State argued that since punishment may extend to 10 years, it is an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, thus 90-day period applies

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years' in clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC means a minimum of ten years, not a maximum. An offence punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years (maximum) does not qualify as 'not less than ten years' and therefore falls under clause (ii) (60 days) for the purpose of default bail.

Judgment Excerpts

The phrase 'imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years' means a minimum of ten years, not a maximum. An offence punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years does not fall under clause (i) but under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC.

Procedural History

Petitioner arrested on 25.09.2013; produced before Magistrate on 26.09.2013; remanded to police custody; on 25.11.2013 applied for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC; Magistrate granted bail; State filed application before Additional Sessions Judge who cancelled bail; petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 17 of 2014 in Bombay High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 167(2), first proviso clauses (i) and (ii)
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 306, Section 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Default Bail in Section 306 IPC Case — Offence Punishable Up to 10 Years Falls Under 60-Day Category Under Section 167(2) CrPC. The phrase 'imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years' means a minimum of ten years, n...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Upholds Validity of No-Confidence Motion Rules Under Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. Rule 3(1), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and ...