IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. is extinguished if the accused fails to submit the bail bond before the chargesheet is filed. Additionally, the court emphasized that bail could be cancelled on merits after filing the chargesheet.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Onkar Nath Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Prakash, learned A.A.G.-IA for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 22.03.2023, in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 13 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 190 of 2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka, whereby, he has been pleased to cancel the default bail, granted to the petitioner on 21.03.2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka.

3. Mr. Onkar Nath Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner is facing the charge under Sections 302, 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the petitioner on his own surrendered before the learned court on 23.11.2022. He submits that within the prescribed period of 90 days, the chargesheet was not submitted, in view of that the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. on 21.03.2023 for grant of default bail. He further submits that on that day, the learned court has been pleased to grant the default bail by order dated 21.03.2023 with the condition that the bail bond should be filed at the earliest. He further submits that the petitioner has not been able to file the bail bond on 21.03.2023, however, the petitioner filed the said bail bond on the very next day i.e. on 22.03.2023 on opening of the Court. He further submits that in the meantime, on 22.03.2023 the chargesheet was submitted and the learned court on the same day at 10.15 A.M. has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner. He submits that in view of the chargesheet submitted by the police, the impugned order has been passed, whereby the learned court has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner on 21.03.2023. He further submits that the life and liberty of the petitioner has been taken away by the said order in view of statutory provisions made under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. as once within the 90 days period, the chargesheet is not submitted, the accused is entitled for default bail, as has been held in several judgments and recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect of the matter in the case of M. Ravindran Versus Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485. He heavily relied upon paras-10, 11, 25.1, 25.2 and 25.3, which are quoted hereinbelow:-

“10. Thus the points to be decided in this case are:

10.1. (a) Whether the indefeasible right accruing to the appellant under Section 167(2) CrPC gets extinguished by subsequent filing of an additional complaint by the investigating agency.

10.2. (b) Whether the Court should take into consideration the time of filing of the application for bail, based on default of the investigating agency or the time of disposal of the application for bail while answering (a).

I. The principles laid down in Uday Mohanlal Acharya [Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 760]

11. Upon perusal of the relevant jurisprudence, we are unable to agree with Mr Lekhi's submissions. Rather, we find that both points (a) and (b) mentioned supra have been answered by the majority opinion of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya [Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 760] by observing thus : (SCC pp. 469-70 & 472-73, para 13)

“13. … It is also further clear that that indefeasible right does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not availed of, as has been held by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt case [Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433]. The crucial question that arises for consideration, therefore, is what is the true meaning of the expression “if already not availed of”? Does it mean that an accused files an application for bail and offers his willingness for being released on bail or does it mean