SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(J&K) 314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Ali Mohammad Magrey, Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, JJ.
Peerzada Rafiq Maqdoomi – Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
CrlA(D) No. 17 of 2022
Decided On : 07-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N.A. Ronga, Umar Nazir Ronga
For the Respondent: Asifa Padroo

The right to default bail is part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the completeness of the charge-sheet, allowing for cognizance and framing of charges, determines the entitlement to default bail.

Headnote:

Default Bail - NIA Act - 13/18/20/38UA(P) Act, 1967 - 34/121/121-A/120-B/124-A/201/468/506 IPC - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.PC, 1973, which deals with the authorization of detention of the accused and the right to default bail. The court also referred to Section 173(8) of Cr.PC, which allows for further investigation even after the submission of a charge-sheet. The judgment highlighted the interpretations of these provisions and their application in determining the entitlement to default bail.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought default bail on the grounds that the charge-sheet was incomplete and further investigation was ongoing. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.PC and the right to default bail, considering the completeness of the charge-sheet and the ongoing investigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charge-sheet, complete in all respects to take cognizance and for framing of charge, was filed within the statutory period of 180 days. The plea for default bail was deemed untenable as the charge-sheet allowed for the affirmative action of taking cognizance and consideration of charge/discharge without waiting for further investigation.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.PC, considering the completeness of the charge-sheet and the ongoing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to default bail is part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that the completeness of the charge-sheet, allowing for cognizance and framing of charges, rendered the plea for default bail untenable.

Final Decision: The appeal for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail was found without merit and substance. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Per Chowdhary, J.

1. Appellant herein moved an application for grant of regular bail before the Special Designated Court Under NIA Act Srinagar on 07.02.2022 in a case registered at Police Station Kothibagh vide FIR No. 82/2020 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 13/18/20/38 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Sections 34/121/121-A/120-B/124-A/201/468/506 IPC.

2. On 20.01.2022, charge-sheet was laid against the accused including the appellant herein for the commission of aforementioned offences before the same Court for judicial determination.

3. Appellant preferred another application with additional grounds for grant of bail and by virtue of these additional grounds it was prayed for grant of default bail in his favour. The court below, after seeking objections from the other side, rejected the plea of the appellant vide order dated 19.02.2022 (hereinafter called 'impugned order').

4. The appellant has assailed the impugned order through the medium of this appeal in terms of Section21 of NIA Act mainly on the following grounds:-

    (i) That, the learned Special Judge while deciding the application of the appellant, has not considered all the grounds urged in the bail petition and passed the impugned order without considering the grounds and arguments raised before the said court.

(ii) That, the investigating agency had produced an incomplete challan/case before the court below on179th day of the arrest of the appellant/accused when the time prescribed under law for production of charge-sheet was 180 days and in case of non-production of challan, right to seek default bail would accrue to the appellant/accused.

(iii) That, in order to defeat his right to seek default bail, the respondent-investigating agency produced an incomplete challan/charge-sheet before the trial court stating that the investigation of the case was still going on and the supplementary charge-sheet shall be submitted before the court, as such, investigating agency cannot be said to have completed the investigation within the required period so as to disentitle the appellant of his fundamental right of default bail.

5. Heard, perused the record and considered the matter.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that since the investigation against the appellant/accused No. 4 was still going on and the supplementary charge-sheet would be filed after completion of the same, thus, in law the investigation of the case FIR No. 82/2020 is not complete as yet and the appellant/accused is in the custody for last more than seven months, as such, he deserves to be released on bail as a right, on seeking default bail in terms of law as available to him. He further argued that the trial court had failed in its legal obligation to admit the appellant/accused to bail due to non-application of mind resulting in passing of the impugned order. It was prayed that the appellant/accused, who deserves to be released on bail, be admitted to bail and the impugned order be set aside.

7. Learned AAG, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that since the charge-sheet for the commission of offences including under UA(P) Act, was laid within 180 days from the arrest of the accused as has been pleaded by the appellant himself, the appellant was not entitled to be admitted to default bail as pleaded in this appeal. Learned AAG further argued that the trial court has rightly passed the order rejecting the plea of compulsive bail, which does not suffer from any kind of illegality, so as to warrant, any interference by this Court and it was finally prayed that the impugned order be upheld and the appeal be dismissed.

8. For proper appreciation of rival submissions, following facts of the case are required to be recorded:-

    (I) The appellant/accused was arrested on 17.07.2021 in case registered at Police Station Kothibagh vide FIR No. 82/2020 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 13/18/20/38UA(P) Act an

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top