Cancellation Of Default Bail Upon The Merits Of The Filed Chargesheet

CAUSE TITLE:

The State through Central Bureau vs T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy

DATE OF ORDER:

16th January 2023

JUDGE(S):

Hon'Ble Justice, M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar

PARTIES:

Petitioner: The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation

 Respondent: T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy

SUBJECT:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’) ruled that when the chargesheet was presented, there was no obstacle to cancelling default bail on merits. The court ordered the Telangana High Court to rule on the merits of the CBI's request to revoke Erra Gangi Reddy's bail, which was granted in connection with the murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy.  

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

Criminal Procedure Code 173

• Section 167(2) - states that the Magistrate toward whom an accused person is directed pursuant to this section may, for respective time, instruct the confinement of the accused in such captivity as such Magistrate deems fit, for a period not to surpass fifteen days in total; and if he has neither jurisdiction to proceed with the proceedings nor can submit it for trial and deems further confinement inappropriate, he may command the accused to be forwarded before the Magistrate that have such jurisdiction.
• Section 439(2) – states that a High Court or Court of Session shall order the arrest and custody of any individual who has been granted bail under this Part.
• Section 437(2) - In accordance with the provisions of Section 446A and awaiting such investigation, the suspect shall be granted bail, or at the decision of such official or Court, on the implementation by him of the terms of his discharge, if it seems to to certain officer or Court at whichever period of the inquarie, investigation, or trial, as the case may be, that there are no substantial basis or grounds for believing that such suspect has constituted a non-bailable crime nevertheless there are enough bases for further inquest into his guilt.
• Section 437(3) – states that any person suspected of committing a crime punishable with the imprisonment period of seven years or more under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of IPC then such person can be released on bail given that the court may impose certain conditions. 
• Section 437(5) - Any court that has granted someone bail according to subsection (1) or subsection (2), may, if it deems it appropriate, order that person to be arrested and placed in jail.

BRIEF FACTS 

• On March 15, 2019, the body of the deceased Shri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, a former member of the A.P. Legislative Council, former member of the Lok Sabha was discovered in his home. The local Pulivendula police station initially reported a complaint under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code for Crime No. 84 of 2019. A case was then filed in accordance with Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The State formed a Special Inquiry Team and took over the investigation. The original accused was detained by the local Police Agency on March 28, 2019, and he was placed in judicial detention. The 90-day legal probation period expired on June 26, 2019. The Accused applied for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code the very following day which was granted by the learned JMFC on 27th June 2019. 
• Upon the order passed by the High Court on 11th march 2020 in Writ Petition No. 1639 of 2020 and write petition No. 3144 of 2019 CBI took over the investigation where an FIR was filed under section 439(2) Cr.P.C for cancellation of the bail which was granted. This was dismissed by the Trial Court on 30th November 2021.
• Aggrieved with this order CBI lodged another charge sheet against the accused under section 201, 201B along with 302 of IPC. Following this CBI investigated further and filed a criminal petition before the High Court under section 439(2) for the cancellation of the granted bail.
• The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was falling under default bail application. Therefore dissatisfied with the order given by the High Court the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court.  Noted that a writ petition under Article 32 of Indian Constitution has been filed for the transfer of the case by the wife and the daughter of the deceased, requesting for the transfer of the trial arising from the current F.I.R. from the C.B.I. Special Court in Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, to the C.B.I. Special Court in Hyderabad or the C.B.I. Special Court in New Delhi, as well as a directive to the C.B.I.
• This Court has granted the aforementioned writ petition based on charges of manipulating with the witnesses and evidence as well as pressuring the C.B.I. Officers by submitting false complaints against them, according to a full decision and order dated 29.11.2022.

ISSUES ROSE:

• Whether the bail plea can be cancelled in a situation where the offender is subsequently discharged on default bail and whether the sequential dates and events must be referred to in support of the termination?
• When an accused is freed on default bail according to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., according to what conditions may his bail be revoked? Can bail be revoked on the grounds that the accused constituted a crime for which there is no possibility of granted bail?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• It was argued that the bail of an accused on default bail according to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was contended to not be based on the merits instead upon the investigating agency's inability to take action within the allotted time period. Therefore, it is claimed, that it is possible for the Court to evaluate the motion for termination of bail upon merits and to evaluate the gravity of the offence following the submission of the chargesheet and correction of any flaws.
• The time frame for when the investigation must be finished is set forth in Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and if it is not, the accused has the opportunity to be freed on bail if he is willing to post bail and does so.\
• Supporting with the case law of “Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272” it was held by the court that even in cases where the accused is discharged on default bail according to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., his release can be withdrawn on the specific grounds that the guilty one has conducted exceptionally serious offences which is non-bailable and deserves to remain in jail.
• It was stated that that the reason the trial was moved was because there was little chance of a fair trial if it were held in the State of Andhra Pradesh due to threats and/or influence against the witnesses. We would not, however, want to go into the aforementioned element at this time and offer any opinions on the abovementioned because the High Court has not at all weighed anything on the merits.
• By taking into account the nature and gravity of the situation, it is urged that the current appeal be allowed and that the bail issued in regard of the respondent hereby be revoked.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The argument which was present by the respondent side stated that based on the established legal precedent, the respondent's bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be revoked simply because the chargesheet was filed later. Because of this, in the current case, the High Court correctly declined to revoke the default bail or bail upon the subsequent lodgement of the chargesheet by the C.B.I. The chargesheet for the current case against the original Accused was filed by the State Police Agency / S.I.T., which was much earlier than the C.B.I. which was given the task to conduct the investigation.
• The motion for termination of the bail under Section 439(2) was presented by the C.B.I. before the learned Trial Court, but it was still dismissed by the Trial Court even when the C.B.I. took over the investigation and submitted the chargesheet.
• According to the chain of decisions made by this Court, the right of the accused to be released on bail in the event that the chargesheet is not filed within the time frame specified in Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is unassailable. It is argued that once a right granted to an accused person upon their release on bail according to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been exercised, it cannot be removed or revoked upon the later filing of the chargesheet.
• If the prosecution doesn't take its job seriously and doesn't do it in the time allotted by the law, it cannot be permitted to play with people's freedoms. Additionally, it would put the accused in unnecessary hardship if they were required to provide a guarantee only to be locked up at the whim of the prosecution after receiving a charge sheet a few days later. Therefore, we believe that bail cannot be revoked once it has been granted only on the basis of the presentation of the charge sheet unless there are compelling reasons to do so.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:

The High Court's ruling is quashed and reversed because it rejected the C.B.I.'s request to have the bail revoked under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The question is responded to in the affirmative, and it is noted and held that in cases where an accused is officially released on default bail pursuant to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and when the chargesheet is filed, a large and powerful case is made out that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime, taking into account the grounds set forth in Sections 437(5) and Section 439(2), his bail can be officially cancelled on merits and the courts are not bound by the terms of Section 167(2) Cr.PC

A solid argument must be presented that the accused constituted a crime for which bail is not an option and that he should be detained in jail based only on the charge sheet, as was noted and held above. The matter is to be returned to the High Court so that it might consider the aforementioned application anew in conformity with the law, on merits, and in light of the recommendations given herein, as the High Court has never once reviewed the motion for revocation of the bail on merits.

In accordance with the earlier decision and order made by this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2022, dated November 29, 2022, the proceedings of the termination of the bail plea, which were previously filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati, are instructed to be relocated to the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, and now the Hig Court of Telangana has taken up the case.

Accordingly, the current appeal is granted to the aforementioned extent.

CONCLUSION

The proviso to Section 167(2) serves to emphasise the necessity of a prompt inquiry within the allotted time frame and to guard against any lapses in that regard. The goal is to generate a sense of urgency and in the event of a default; the Magistrate will discharge the suspect if he is prepared and provides bail. An order for discharge on bail issued according to the proviso of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is therefore not based on the merits but rather on the prosecuting agency's failure. It is argued that the presuming fiction allowed by Section 167(2)'s proviso cannot be used to make bail decisions that were not based on merit appear to have been made on merit.

Therefore, when the defect or default has been corrected after the chargesheet has been filed; such an order may be voidable for extraordinary circumstances. Due to the State Police's failure to complete the investigation within the allotted timeframe and their casual attitude, the investigation was transferred to the appellant in the current case and the respondent was given bail pursuant to the proviso of Section 167(2). 

Criminal justice involves an individual's liberty; hence the clause must be firmly interpreted in favour of that liberty because even the law anticipates an early conclusion to the inquiry. The inquiry may not be finished on time at the risk of the accused being granted bail.