Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Chandrej Singh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus or appropriate direction to set him at liberty. He was arrested as accused No.1 in FIR No. RC0682017E0014 dated 31.08.2017 registered by the CBI for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner challenged the order dated 5 January 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, remanding him to custody. The primary argument was that the investigation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (charge-sheet) was not filed within the prescribed time limit, rendering his detention illegal and entitling him to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. The court heard extensive arguments from both sides. The petitioner's counsel, Dr. Nilesh Pawaskar, relied on annexures and filed a rejoinder affidavit annexing the charge-sheet. The respondents, represented by Mr. Ankur Pahade for CBI and Ms. M.H. Mhatre for the State, opposed the petition. The court noted that the charge-sheet was filed within the extended period and the remand orders were valid. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, holding that no right to default bail had accrued and the detention was not illegal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 167(2) CrPC - Investigation Report - The petitioner sought habeas corpus alleging illegal detention as charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days. The court held that the investigation report under Section 173 CrPC was filed within the extended period and the remand orders were valid, thus no right to default bail accrued. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC and a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the charge-sheet under Section 173 CrPC was not filed within the prescribed time limit.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the investigation report under Section 173 CrPC was filed within the extended period and the remand orders were valid. No right to default bail accrued to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Habeas Corpus
- Default bail
- Section 167(2) CrPC
- Section 173 CrPC
- Investigation report
- Remand
- Article 226
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO. 1801 OF 2018
S.C. Dharmadhikari, Smt. Bharati H. Dangre
Dr. Nilesh Pawaskar, Shyamrishi Pathak, Atal B. Dubey for Petitioner; Mr. Ankur Pahade, Shishir Hiray for CBI; Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for State
CBI-EOW - 11, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus or appropriate direction to set the petitioner at liberty.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 5 January 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, and issuance of writ of habeas corpus directing the police machinery to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that his detention was illegal and unconstitutional because the investigation report under Section 173 CrPC was not filed within the prescribed time limit, entitling him to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.
Previous Decisions
The order dated 5 January 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, remanding the petitioner to custody.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on the ground that the charge-sheet was not filed within the prescribed time limit.
Whether the detention of the petitioner is illegal and unconstitutional warranting issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the investigation report under Section 173 CrPC was not filed within the prescribed time limit, thus the remand order was illegal and he is entitled to default bail.
Respondents argued that the charge-sheet was filed within the extended period and the remand orders were valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC does not accrue if the investigation report under Section 173 CrPC is filed within the prescribed or extended period. The detention based on valid remand orders is not illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner states that the order dated 5 January 2018, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai be quashed and set aside.
Primarily, the Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus or appropriate Writ and direction directing the police machinery to set him at liberty forthwith.
Hence, the order remanding the Petitioner – accused thereafter results in the Petitioner's illegal and unconstitutional detention enabling this Court to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 5 January 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, remanding him to custody. The petition was heard extensively, and after arguments, the court dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 167(2), Section 173
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
