Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Comanduru Parthasarathy, an accused in Crime No.82 of 2021 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, was arrested and produced before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru on 21-10-2021 in execution of a body warrant while he was in custody in another case in Hyderabad. He was remanded to police custody until 02-11-2021, then to judicial custody. On 18-12-2021, the police filed a preliminary charge sheet against two other accused but not against the petitioner. The 90-day period from the date of his arrest expired on 20-01-2022. On the 95th day, the petitioner filed an application under Section 167(2) CrPC seeking statutory/default bail on the ground that no charge sheet had been filed against him within the stipulated period. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on 29-01-2022, holding that the 13-day period of police custody under the body warrant was to be excluded from the computation of 90 days. The petitioner's subsequent regular bail application under Section 437 CrPC was also rejected on 23-03-2022. Aggrieved, he filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the default bail rejection order and grant of bail. The petitioner argued that the order was erroneous as the period of custody under the body warrant cannot be excluded, and that he was entitled to default bail since no charge sheet was filed against him even beyond 90 days. He relied on several judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court. The State opposed the bail, contending that once a charge sheet is filed against any accused, default bail cannot be claimed, and the investigation against the petitioner is still ongoing. The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the court's analysis, reasoning, or final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the ground that no charge sheet was filed against him within 90 days of his arrest, and whether the period of police custody pursuant to a body warrant should be excluded from the 90-day period.
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (04) 17
Criminal Petition No. 2802 of 2022
Sandesh Chouta (Sr. Advocate), Nikhil K. (Advocate) for petitioner; B.J. Rohith (HCGP) for respondent
State of Karnataka by Seshadripuram Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order rejecting default bail and grant of bail.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 29-01-2022 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.2423/2022 rejecting his application for statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, and consequently sought enlargement on bail.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody in Crime No.82/2021; no charge sheet was filed against him within 90 days of his arrest, yet the Magistrate rejected his default bail application by excluding the period of police custody under body warrant from the computation of the 90-day period.
Previous Decisions
The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru rejected the petitioner's application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on 29-01-2022, and subsequently rejected his regular bail application under Section 437 CrPC on 23-03-2022.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the ground that no charge sheet was filed against him within 90 days of his arrest, and whether the period of police custody pursuant to a body warrant should be excluded from the 90-day period.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's Argument: The order rejecting default bail is erroneous because the Magistrate wrongly excluded 13 days of police custody on body warrant from the 90-day period. Even after 180 days, no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner, and he is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. Reliance placed on Vijay Kumar v. State, Jayabalu v. State of Karnataka, CBI v. Kenche Mahesh Kumar, Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, and M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
Respondent's Argument: Once a charge sheet is filed against other accused, the petitioner is not entitled to default bail. The case against the petitioner is still under investigation and default bail is not applicable. Permission has been taken for further investigation. Reliance placed on Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI and Serious Fraud Investigation v. Rahul Modi.
Judgment Excerpts
On 20-01-2022 the period of 90 days from the date on which the petitioner was arrested expired. On the 95th day the petitioner files an application under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C seeking statutory/default bail in connection with Crime No.82 of 2021 on the ground that no charge sheet was filed against him by the police in the aforesaid crime.
The learned senior counsel would vehemently argue and contend that the order impugned dated 29-01-2022 passed by the learned Magistrate is on the face of it erroneous as the learned Magistrate holds that on a body warrant the petitioner was in police custody for 13 days and that period will have to be excluded for consideration of expiry of 90 days for consideration of application for default bail.
Procedural History
A crime was registered in Crime No.82 of 2021 by Seshadripuram Police Station against the petitioner and several others. A body warrant and escort memo was issued against the petitioner who was in custody of WCO team-12 of the Central Crime Station in Crime No.142 of 2021 at Hyderabad. The body warrant was executed on 20-10-2021 at Central Prison, Hyderabad, and the petitioner was produced before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru on 21-10-2021 in connection with Crime No.82 of 2021. He was taken into custody and remanded to police custody. The petitioner remained in police custody from 21-10-2021 to 02-11-2021. On 26-10-2021, he was enlarged on bail by the Hyderabad court in Crime No.142 of 2021. He then filed an application for bail under Section 437 CrPC in Crime No.82 of 2021. On the day of the application, he was remanded to judicial custody and placed in Central Jail. The body warrant was further extended till 15-11-2021. Objections were filed to his bail application on 02-11-2021. Pending consideration of his bail, the Hyderabad court granted him default bail in another crime (Crime No.100 of 2021) due to non-filing of charge sheet. At Bengaluru, the body warrant was further extended till 28-12-2021. On 18-12-2021, a preliminary charge sheet was filed against accused Nos. 3 and 12 but not against the petitioner. The period of 90 days from the date of his arrest expired on 20-01-2022. On the 95th day (i.e., 25-01-2022), he filed an application under Section 167(2) CrPC seeking statutory/default bail. The learned Magistrate rejected this application on 29-01-2022. Subsequently, on 23-03-2022, the Magistrate rejected his regular bail application under Section 437 CrPC. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the default bail rejection order and grant of bail.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482, 437, 167(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 107, 424, 427, 34, 418, 421, 403, 406, 409, 411, 413, 414, 420, 468, 120, 120A, 378, 405, 410, 415, 425, 463, 464, 117
