Bombay High Court Grants Default Bail to Accused in MCOC Case for Failure to File Charge Sheet Within 90 Days. Right to Default Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC is Indefeasible and Cannot Be Defeated by Subsequent Filing of Charge Sheet.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 40
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners were arrested in connection with Crime No.172/2015 registered at Police Station Ajni, Nagpur for offences under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 294, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 25, 27 of the Arms Act. The incident occurred on 28th May 2015. The petitioners were produced before the learned Special Judge designated under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) and were remanded to police custody. The investigation was not completed within 90 days from the date of first remand. The petitioners filed applications under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Special Judge seeking default bail on the ground that the charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed period. The Special Judge rejected the applications and directed that the remand papers be transmitted to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for further proceedings. The petitioners also filed applications under Section 167(2) CrPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which were also rejected. The petitioners challenged these orders by filing two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an indefeasible right that accrues upon expiry of the prescribed period if the charge sheet is not filed. The court noted that the petitioners had filed their applications for default bail before the charge sheet was submitted. The court further held that the Special Court under the MCOC Act has exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under that Act, but for the purpose of remand and default bail, the Special Court cannot extend the period of police custody beyond 90 days. The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the orders of the Special Judge and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, and directed that the petitioners be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Special Judge may deem fit.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC - Indefeasible Right - The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrues upon expiry of the prescribed period (90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for not less than 10 years) if investigation is not completed and charge sheet not filed. This right is indefeasible and cannot be defeated by subsequent filing of charge sheet after the accused has applied for bail. The court must release the accused on bail if they are prepared to furnish bail. (Paras 1-10)

B) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction - MCOC Act - Special Court - The Special Court designated under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 has exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under that Act. However, for the purpose of remand and default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, the Special Court cannot extend the period of police custody beyond 90 days. Once the charge sheet is not filed within 90 days, the accused is entitled to default bail. (Paras 2-10)

C) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Application - Timing - The application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC must be filed before the charge sheet is submitted. If the accused files an application for default bail after the expiry of the prescribed period but before the charge sheet is filed, the right to default bail crystallizes and cannot be defeated by subsequent filing of charge sheet. (Paras 5-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the charge sheet was not filed within 90 days of their first remand and the applications for default bail were filed before the charge sheet was submitted.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the orders of the Special Judge and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, and directed that the petitioners be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Special Judge may deem fit.

Law Points

  • Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an indefeasible right if charge sheet not filed within prescribed period
  • Right to default bail cannot be defeated by subsequent filing of charge sheet after application
  • Special Court under MCOC Act has exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under that Act but not to extend police custody beyond 90 days
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (05) 52

Criminal Writ Petition No.182/2016 and Criminal Writ Petition No.197/2016

2016-05-05

Z.A. Haq, J.

Shri D.V. Chauhan (for petitioners in WP 182/2016), Shri S.P. Gadling (for petitioners in WP 197/2016), Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. (for respondents in both petitions)

Virendra @ Gijrya s/o Suresh Lonare and Vicky s/o Damodar Rokade (in WP 182/2016); Bhupendra @ Golu s/o Suryakant Borkar and Dinesh s/o Bhondulal Baisware (in WP 197/2016)

State of Maharashtra and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ajni Division, Nagpur

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petitions challenging rejection of default bail applications under Section 167(2) CrPC.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on the ground that charge sheet was not filed within 90 days of their first remand.

Filing Reason

The petitioners were arrested in Crime No.172/2015 for offences under IPC and Arms Act. They were produced before the Special Judge under MCOC Act. The investigation was not completed within 90 days, and they filed applications for default bail which were rejected.

Previous Decisions

The Special Judge rejected the default bail applications and directed transmission of remand papers to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate also rejected the default bail applications.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC when charge sheet was not filed within 90 days of first remand. Whether the Special Court under MCOC Act has jurisdiction to extend police custody beyond 90 days for default bail purposes. Whether the right to default bail is defeated by subsequent filing of charge sheet after the application is made.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they were entitled to default bail as charge sheet was not filed within 90 days and they had applied for bail before the charge sheet was filed. Respondents argued that the Special Court under MCOC Act had exclusive jurisdiction and the period of 90 days had not expired or that the charge sheet was filed subsequently.

Ratio Decidendi

The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an indefeasible right that accrues upon expiry of the prescribed period (90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for not less than 10 years) if the charge sheet is not filed. This right cannot be defeated by subsequent filing of charge sheet after the accused has applied for bail. The Special Court under MCOC Act cannot extend the period of police custody beyond 90 days for the purpose of default bail.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners, in both writ petitions, have challenged the order passed by the learned Special Judge designated under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The challenges raised in both the writ petitions are common, therefore, both these writ petitions are disposed by common judgment.

Procedural History

The petitioners were arrested in Crime No.172/2015 on 28th May 2015. They were produced before the Special Judge under MCOC Act and remanded to police custody. On expiry of 90 days without charge sheet, they filed applications under Section 167(2) CrPC for default bail before the Special Judge, which were rejected. The Special Judge directed transmission of remand papers to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioners also filed applications before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which were also rejected. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions before the Bombay High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 167(2)
  • Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999:
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 294, 427
  • Arms Act, 1959: 3, 4, 25, 27
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against 13 Petitioners in Cheating Case Due to Civil Nature of Dispute. Court holds that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool for recovery of money in a purely contractual dispute.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellant in Rape Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC set aside as medical evidence did not support rape and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable...