Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Pradyuman @ Praduman Sharma @ Saket @ Kundan – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1305 of 2022
Decided on : 22-01-2024
[NIA Act] - [Bail Application] - [Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008; Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 21 of the NIA Act, which allows appeals against orders of special judges, and Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., which mandates the release of an accused on bail if a chargesheet is not filed within 90 days. The court interpreted that the 90-day period for filing a chargesheet begins from the date of remand, not from the date of custody, emphasizing the importance of judicial oversight in remand proceedings to protect personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to bail as the application was filed before the completion of the 90-day period calculated from the correct remand date.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was arrested in connection with a case involving alleged conspiracy to revive the CPI (Maoist) organization. He was already in custody for another case when the NIA took over the investigation. The appellant filed for bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., claiming that the chargesheet was not filed within the stipulated 90 days, counting from the date the NIA became aware of his custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned trial court correctly calculated the 90-day period from the date of remand (26.07.2022) rather than from the date the NIA became aware of the appellant's custody (14.02.2022). The court emphasized that the remand must be a judicial act and cannot be deemed based on police knowledge alone.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the 90-day period for filing a chargesheet should be counted from the date the investigating officer became aware of the appellant's custody or from the date of formal remand by the magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 90-day period under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. begins from the date of remand as ordered by the magistrate, reinforcing the principle that remand is a judicial function requiring proper oversight to protect the rights of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to deny bail as the application was premature, filed before the completion of the 90-day period calculated from the correct remand date.
JUDGMENT :
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 15.10.2022 passed by learned AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA Cases, Ranchi in Spl. (NIA) Case No.01 of 2022 arising out of R.C. Case No.05 of 2021 (NIA)/RNC) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant for enlarging him on bail as the chargesheet has not been submitted till today and 90 days have passed for filing the chargesheet against the appellant, has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the Memo of Appeal, reads hereunder as :-
3. The Appellant was already in custody in a separate case being Chauparan PS Case No.263/2018 in which he was remanded to judicial custody on 20.08.2021 and the same was in the specific knowledge of the NIA Investigating Officer of the instant case.
4. It is the case of the appellant that as per the order dated 14.02.2022 of the instant case, it is evident that the IO had the knowledge of the appellant's judicial custody in Koderma Jail. Further as per the order dated 27.04.2022 of the instant case, it reflects that the IO had the knowledge of the Appellant's jail custody in connection with Chouparan PS Case No. 263/2018 as on the said date he also moved an application for interrogation of the Appellant which was granted to him vide order dated 17.05.2022 from 18.05.2022 till 21.05.2022 by the learned trial court.
5. Since then more than 90 days has already elapsed but no final report/charge-sheet or any application for extension of time has been submitted and hence this application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed for his release on furnishing bail bond to the satisfaction of this learned court. For the purpose of calculating the period of 90 days the appellant has taken the date of 14.02.2022 as the said date is the first date where the knowledge of the custody of the appellant is reflected by the IO of the instant case.
6. That the Appellant was languishing in the judicial custody in the Chauparan PS Case No. 263/2018 since 20.08.21 which is duly reflected in the order dated 27.04.22 and the order dated 14.02.2022 reflects that the IO had the knowledge of the appellant's jail custody in Koderma Jail. There is no justifiable reason or justification for the IO to not take the formal custody of the appellant since 14.02.2022 when he had the knowledge of the appellant's jail custody and that the appellant happened to be the named accused in the FIR.
7. It the further case of the appellant that on 21.07.2022 the IO moved an application seeking remand of appellant for an in depth examination which the IO had already done for 4 days from 18.05.22-21.05.22. However, still the learned trial court mechanically allowed the same by posting the matter for production of the appellant on 26.07.2022. Finally on 26.07.2022 the appellant was remanded in the instant case.
8. It is the case of the appellant that when till 15.10.2022 neither any charge-sheet, nor any application seeking extension
The right to bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is contingent upon the completion of the investigation within the prescribed time frame, which is calculated from the date of judicial remand, no....
The completion of investigation within the prescribed period and the loss of right to default bail upon presentation of the charge sheet.
The main legal principle established is that the accused is entitled to default bail if the investigation is not completed within the mandated period, as per the legislative intent of section 167(2) ....
The filing of a complaint within the stipulated time precludes the entitlement to default bail, regardless of remand order irregularities, which must comply with statutory requirements.
Default bail—Essential requisite for availing statutory bail is that accused must have undergone authorised period of detention ordered by Magistrate.
The period of house arrest does not constitute custody for the purposes of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it is declared illegal and unsustainable in law by a competent court.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) accrues upon non-filing of the charge-sheet within the stipulated time, and cannot be extinguished by subsequent extensions or filings.
The court ruled that consent under Section 45 of the Cr.P.C. was not required for the petitioner's arrest, affirming the jurisdiction of the Special Judge and the validity of remand orders.
(1) Writ of Habeas Corpus – When there is a non-compliance of mandatory provisions along with a total non-application of mind, there may be a case for entertaining a writ of Habeas Corpus and that to....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
