WHAT IS A DEFAULT BAIL?
* Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPc), the maximum period for which the Judicial Magistrate can grant custody of an accused in the course of the investigation is 90 days for offences punishable with not less than 10 years, and 60 days for offences punishable with less than 10 years. Thus, if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated period, the magistrate will no longer be competent in the course of the investigation to send the accused into custody. Accordingly, the magistrate will have to grant bail to the accused. Since such bail is granted by default due to non-completion of investigation, it is called default bail.
* Bail is often granted depending on various factors, but under Section 167(2), the Judicial Magistrate grants bail on non-completion of the investigation, i.e., under 60 or 90 days. After the completion of the aforementioned period, the accused can move an application for the grant of bail. If he does not move an application before the court, then he cannot avail the benefit of default bail. The Supreme Court in Natbar Parinda v. State of Orissa observed that the accused has a right to be released “even in serious and ghastly types of crimes.
* This section of the CrPc is mainly concerned with the fundamental right of life and personal liberty of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON THIS
* Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State Of Assam, the case which spoke about default bail as an indefeasible right.
* The most recent judgement regarding this has been the case M Ravindran vs The Intelligence Officer which emphasized on the right of default bail.
RECENT NEWS
* The accused in this case was tried under the Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 201, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and in various other sections of other acts.
* The accused filed an application of default bail in the stipulated period under Section 167(2) since the charge sheet was not filed. The bail was granted by the HC with the reasoning that the accused can be re-arrested after the charge sheet is filed. This order of the HC made the accused to approach the SC. Opposing this the state contended that the High Court has the power to impose any condition while granting bail under Section 437(3) and 439(2) of CrPc.
ORDER OF THE SC
* The Court held that filing of charge sheet by itself cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail and also that bail granted under Section 167 Cr.P.C. can be cancelled on other grounds.
* As a result of this discussion, the judgement of the HC was set aside and it was ordered that an accused who was released on default bail cannot be re-arrested on the filing of the charge sheet.
* The Supreme Court observed that the power of the court to cancel bail if it considers it necessary is preserved in cases where a person has been released on bail under section 437(1) or (2) and these provisions are applicable to a person who has been released under section 167(2). It emphasized that the provisions of section 437(1), (2), and (5) are applicable to a person who has been released under Section 167(2) and the mere fact that subsequent to his release a challan has been filed cannot be sufficient to commit him to custody.
WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THIS? LET US KNOW YOUR VIEWS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
