Default Bail Not Available For Not Filing Supplementary Chargesheet

WHAT WAS THE MATTER

• The case Santosh S/o Hari Kadam and the State of Karnataka (2021) was a case involving the use of the provision of default bail under CrPC on non-filing of supplementary charge sheet within the prescribed time.
• The Petitioner made a petition before the High Court of Karnataka to quash the orders of the lower courts rejecting his bail application.
• The petitioner was arrested on February 6th 2021, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Arms Act, 1959.
• The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was arrested in February, but the investigation officer filed the supplementary chargesheet in the month of May, which was after the mandated period of 90 days. Therefore, the provision of default bail, as under Section 167(2) should be applied and the accused be given bail.
• The counsel for the respondents (the government) argued that the main charge sheet was filed by the police on January 4th 2021, after which the accused was arrested in February. The leave for filing a supplementary charge sheet was taken to provide additional information about the other accused as and when it could be found, and therefore, the provisions for default bail could not be applied.

WHAT THE COURT HELD

• The Court observed that the filing of supplementary chargesheet by the police under Section 173(8) of CrPC could be done as a matter of right and that it did not require a special leave from the Court.
• Further, on the application of Section 167(2) of CrPC, the Court observed that the petitioner was arrested after the original charge sheet was filed and the provision for default bail could be applied only if the charge sheet has not been filed against the accused and he has been arrested during the investigation, which was not the case in the present situation. Therefore, according to the Court, there was no applicability of Section 167(2) in the present case.
• Apart from that, the Court also observed that the petition was filed under Section 439 CrPC, to challenge the order of the Trial and the Revision Court. But the petition was not maintainable in the first place as it was not in consonance with the provisions mentioned under Section 482 CrPC.
• Therefore, on the basis of above findings, the Court dismissed the petition as being without any merits and also for not being maintainable.

WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THE CASE?