The entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is determined by the nature of the offense and the applicable imprisonment provisions, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul's case.

JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral). Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide which the petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within 10 days.

2. The petitioner was taken into custody on 06.05.2020 and on the expiry of period of 60 days the petitioner was granted default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C vide Annexure P-2 dated 06.07.2020. Since the challan of the case was not presented, the aforesaid order was passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tosham on the ground that since 60 days have expired the petitioner is entitled to default bail.

3. However, the State of Haryana filed revision against the aforesaid order in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and vide Annexure P-3 dated 16.12.2020, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani set aside the aforesaid order with a direction to the accused to surrender before the learned Trial Court within 10 days from the date of the order.

4. The subject matter involved in the present case was that as to whether the petitioner could have been entitled to default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) or 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C or not. In other words, whether the petitioner was entitled to bail after a period of 60 days or after a period of 90 days. An FIR against the petitioner was lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani. Section 467 IPC provides for an imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years. The aforesaid Section is reproduced as under:-

"467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an a quittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

5. Section 167 Cr.P.C provides for procedure when investigation can not be completed in 24 hours. However, in proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, it has been provided that no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused in person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and 60 days is provided where the investigation relates to any other offence. In the present case, the petitioner was involved in an offence which provides imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years.

6. Learned Sub Judicial Magistrate, Tosham granted default bail to the petitioner under 167(2)(a)(ii) in view of the fact that one of the imprisonments provided under Section 467 IPC was a sentence upto 10 years whereas in revision petition the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani set aside the order on the ground that since one of the sentences provided in the aforesaid sections was imprisonment for life, the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) will apply and 167(2)(a)(ii) will not apply. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam 2017(3) RCR (Criminal) 996. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment contained in Para No.91, 92, 93, 98, 111 is reproduced as under:-

91. In my view the language of the statute is clear and u