Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Parshuram s/o Bajirao Dongre, was arrested on 23.7.2017 in connection with Crime No. 85/2017 registered at Aheri Police Station, Gadchiroli, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and later Sections 17, 18, 20, 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The allegations were that he acted as an agent for naxalites, collected extortion money, and helped convert demonetized currency. He was initially sent to police custody remand (PCR) for seven days. On 31.7.2017, the Magistrate refused extension of PCR and sent him to magisterial custody remand (MCR) till 11.8.2017. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed a revision on 16.8.2017, granting liberty to seek PCR extension, confirmed by this Court on 11.9.2017. On 21.9.2017, the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate, who passed an order stating "PCR granted till 21.9.2017" but did not specifically extend the remand. The petitioner filed an application under Section 167(2) CrPC for default bail, which was rejected by the Magistrate on 16.1.2018 and by the Additional Sessions Judge on 12.1.2018. The High Court held that the order dated 21.9.2017 did not constitute a valid extension of police custody remand as it lacked a specific order and the accused was not produced on that date for extension. Since the petitioner had completed 60 days in custody and no valid extension was passed, he was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the petitioner's release on bail on such terms as the Magistrate may impose.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC - Mandatory Production and Specific Order - The court held that for valid extension of police custody remand, the accused must be produced before the Magistrate on the date of extension and the Magistrate must pass a specific order extending remand; failure to do so entitles the accused to default bail. (Paras 7-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Remand - Extension of Police Custody - Section 167(2) CrPC - The court observed that the order dated 21.9.2017 did not specifically extend police custody remand but merely recorded production and granted PCR till 21.9.2017, which was not a valid extension. (Paras 8-9) C) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC - The court held that the petitioner had completed 60 days in custody and since no valid extension of remand was passed, he was entitled to be released on bail. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC when the Magistrate failed to pass a specific order extending remand and the accused was not produced on the date of remand extension?
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Impugned orders dated 12.1.2018 and 16.1.2018 are set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may impose.
Law Points
- Section 167(2) CrPC
- default bail
- mandatory production of accused
- specific order of remand extension
- right to be released on expiry of 60/90 days
