Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajkumar Bhagchand Jain, filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Bombay High Court seeking the release of his son, Rohit Jain, from judicial custody in connection with CBI Case No. RC.3/E/2017 registered by the CBI Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai. The son was arrested on 19-9-2017 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 20-9-2017. He was remanded to CBI custody till 28-9-2017, and thereafter to judicial custody from 28-9-2017 till 12-10-2017, which continued till 9-11-2017. On 9-11-2017, a further remand application was moved and judicial custody was granted till 23-11-2017. The petitioner argued that the maximum permissible custody of 60 days under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) had expired on 23-11-2017, and the continued detention thereafter was illegal, entitling the son to default bail. The court examined the provisions of Section 167(2) CrPC, which prescribes a maximum period of 90 days for investigation where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and 60 days for other offences. The court noted that the CBI case involved offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which carry punishment of more than 10 years, and therefore the 90-day limit applied. The charge-sheet was filed on 24-11-2017, which was within 90 days from the date of first remand (20-9-2017). The court also observed that the petitioner's son had not applied for default bail before the trial court. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the detention was not illegal and no right to default bail had accrued.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC, 1973 - Computation of 60-day limit - The petitioner's son was arrested on 19-9-2017 and remanded to judicial custody. The maximum period of 60 days under Section 167(2) for offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years expired on 23-11-2017. However, the charge-sheet was filed on 24-11-2017, i.e., on the 66th day. The court held that the 60-day limit applies only to offences punishable with imprisonment of less than 10 years; for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of 10 years or more, the limit is 90 days. Since the CBI case involved offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which carry punishment of more than 10 years, the 90-day limit applied. The charge-sheet was filed within 90 days, hence no right to default bail arose. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Habeas Corpus - Illegal Detention - Section 167(2) CrPC, 1973 - The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus alleging illegal detention after 60 days. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the detention was not illegal as the charge-sheet was filed within the permissible 90-day period. The court also noted that the petitioner's son had not applied for default bail before the trial court. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the continued judicial custody of the petitioner's son beyond 60 days from the date of first remand is illegal, entitling him to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 167(2) CrPC
- 60-day limit for investigation
- 90-day limit for investigation
- default bail
- habeas corpus
- judicial custody
- charge-sheet filing
- CBI case
- economic offences
