Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
Ankit Tiwari - Petitioner
Versus
The State through, DSP of Police, Dindigul - Respondent
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 178 of 2024
Decided On : 15-03-2024
Criminal Revision Case - Statutory Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 397, Section 401, Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7(a) - S. Kasi Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District (2020 AIR (SC) 2921), Kosanapu Ramreddy Vs. State of Anthra Pradhesh (AIR 1994 SC 1447) - The court discussed the entitlement for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the impact of the order of stay granted by the Supreme Court on the filing of the charge sheet. The court also considered the interpretation of the order of stay and its effect on the petitioner's entitlement for default bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Enforcement Officer, was alleged to have demanded illegal gratification and was caught with the amount. The petitioner sought default bail due to the non-filing of the charge sheet within the stipulated time under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. However, the order of stay granted by the Supreme Court on further investigation tied the hands of the respondent from filing the charge sheet.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of stay granted by the Supreme Court prevented the respondent from filing the charge sheet within the stipulated time, leading to a catch-22 situation. The court emphasized the importance of following the order of the Supreme Court and refrained from granting default bail without a clarification from the Apex Court.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's entitlement for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. in light of the order of stay granted by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the order of stay and its impact on the petitioner's entitlement for default bail. The court emphasized the need for a clarification from the Apex Court before granting default bail, considering the prejudice to the respondent's rights and the importance of following the order of the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revision petition, granting liberty to the parties to approach the Apex Court to have the order clarified.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1587 of 2024 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Dindigul dated 06.02.2024.)
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed assailing the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1587 of 2024 in and by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Dindigul dated 06.02.2024, has declined to grant statutory bail to the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein is working as Enforcement Officer in Enforcement Department. It is alleged that on 29.10.2023, at about 08.00 pm., the petitioner had called the defacto complainant via Whatsapp call and had asked him to appear on 30.10.2023 at the ED Office with regard to the disproportionate asset case. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs.3 Crores from the defacto complainant in order to exonerate him from the said case. Again the petitioner called the defacto complainant on 01.11.2023 and reduced his demand of bribe to the tune of Rs.51 Lakhs and asked the defacto complainant to come to a particular place where the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs was to be handed over to the petitioner.
3. It is further alleged that on 01.11.2023, at about 08.50 am., again the petitioner called the defacto complainant to arrange the remaining amount of Rs.31 Lakhs. After arranging the said amount, on 14.11.2023, the defacto complainant sent a message to the whatsapp number of the petitioner, but there was no response from the petitioner. It is further alleged that thereafter, on 29.11.2023, the petitioner called the defacto complainant and asked him to come on 30.11.2023/01.12.2023 to hand over the remaining amount. Since the defacto complainant was not satisfied with the action of the petitioner, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent, based on which, on 01.12.2023, a trap was arranged and the petitioner was caught with the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and FIR was registered in Cr.No.6 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the bail petition filed by the petitioner before the trial Court as well as before this Court were dismissed. In incarceration, the respondents having not filed the charge sheet within the time stipulated u/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner moved petition for default bail before the trial court which was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of an order of stay granted by the Supreme Court in subsistence. Challenging the said order, the present criminal revision case has been filed.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that pending this revision, the Enforcement Directorate filed W.P. (Crl.) No.23 of 2024 before the Apex Court seeking transfer of investigation, in which, the Supreme Court, granted stay of further investigation in Cr.No.6 of 2023, vide order dated 25.01.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed SLP.(Crl) Nos.3342 & 3343 of 2024 before the Apex Court and by order dated 11.03.2024, the Supreme Court directed this Court to decide the petition for default bail moved by the petitioner on merits notwithstanding the stay on investigation ordered by the Apex Court. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the order of the Apex Court, granting permission to this Court to decide the petition for default bail on merits, there would be no embargo for this Court to decide the petition for default bail.
6. In the aforestated circumstances, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the grant of permission by the Apex Court coupled with the non-filing of the charge sheet within the period of 60 days, the petitioner would be entitled for default bail, as pe
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the order of the Supreme Court and refraining from granting default bail without a clarification from the Apex Court, c....
(1) Default bail – Period of 90 days is stated to be counted when investigation for fresh offence(s) is started and not from date of lodging of FIR.(2) Default bail – Right to seek default/statutory ....
An accused is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. if charges are not filed within the statutory period, emphasizing the fundamental right to personal liberty.
The main legal point established is that the accused has an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the NDPS Act, and this right should not be denied due to delays or the ....
The accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. remains enforceable, and the court must promptly decide on bail applications to prevent the prosecution from circumventing this right.
The main legal point established is that the accused's right to default bail accrues after the expiry of the stipulated time limit for investigation, and the prosecution must complete the investigati....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to default bail under section 167 of the CrPC is enforceable only prior to the filing of the charge-sheet and does not survive or re....
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
