Date Of Decision:
03.08.2021
Coram:
Justice Rajendra Badamikar
Parties To The Case:
Petitioner/Plaintiff: Santosh S/o Hari Kadam
Respondent/Defendant: State of Karnataka
Subject
Default Bail if supplementary chargesheet is submitted after the prescribed time.
Issue
Can an accused secure a default bail u/s 167(2) of the CrPC, if the supplementary chargesheet has been filed after the prescribed time limit?
OVERVIEW
- The petitioner was arrested on 06.02.21 for being guilty of various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Arms Act, 1959 by the Trial Court.
- The police took a leave of the court to file a supplementary chargesheet, which was filed by the police on 17.05.21.
- He filed for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, but his application was denied by the Trial Court, and subsequently by the Revision Court.
- He filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court to quash the orders of the Trial Court and the Revision Court, which had declined bail to him.
- The principal contention of the counsel of the petitioner was that the supplementary chargesheet was filed after the prescribed limit of 90 days, and therefore, the petitioner was eligible for a default bail.
- But the counsel for the respondent contended that the original chargesheet was filed on 04.01.21, on the basis of which the accused was taken into custody. Therefore, according to the counsel, as per the provisions, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This provision relates with the power of a Magistrate to extend the custody of any person for a period of more than 15 days, if he has sufficient reasons to do so. But in a case where the accused has been arrested for an offence which is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a maximum period of 10 years, the custody cannot be extended for a period of more than 90 days.
- Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This provision relates to the concept of supplementary chargesheet. Under this, after the filing of main chargesheet, the police have been given the power to submit a supplementary chargesheet, if it comes across some extra information during the investigation.
JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT
- The High Court observed that under Section 173(8) CrPC, the investigation officer was entitled to file a supplementary petition as a matter of right if some additional information of substantive nature was found by them in the course of their investigation.
- As per the facts, the accused was arrested after the original chargesheet was filed and the supplementary chargesheet that was later filed by the police was with respect to the offences of the other unnamed offenders and not that of the petitioner. Therefore, the provisions of Section 167(2) could not be made applicable in the case.
- The Court also observed that the petition was filed under Section 439 CrPC, which relates to the special powers of a High Court regarding bail, which made it prima facie non-maintainable as it did not contain the mention of the provisions as under Section 482 CrPC.
- On the basis of the facts and the observations, the Court dismissed the petition on account of not having any merits and also being non-maintainable.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it can be said that a default bail under Section 167(2) cannot be sought merely on account of the filing of the supplementary chargesheet after the prescribed limit. The High Court correctly applied the provisions to ensure that the provisions are not misused by anyone. This petition was nothing but wastage of the precious time of the court as the facts made it clear that provisions for default bail couldn’t have been applied in the case.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
