The imposition of an impractical, unreasonable, and onerous time limit condition for furnishing bail and bonds at the time of granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not permissible and does not qualify the test of reasonableness under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on the ground that it has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:

FIR No. 22 dated 10.05.2023 was registered on the basis of statement made by one Danish by stating that one person booked a taxi belonging to him for dropping at airport and when he crossed the airport light point and reached near the bus stop at Chandigarh, then there were two men standing who gestured to him to stop the car and when he stopped the car, then the aforesaid boys said that they have to go to bus stand at Sector 17, Chandigarh and he will pay the expenses. He made both the persons sit in the car and when he reached at Section 17 bus stand chowk, his car was headed towards Sector 18/21 dividing road, then these boys told him to drop them at Sector 18, Chandigarh. Thereafter, he turned his car towards Sector 18/21 dividing road and after a short distance, both the boys threatened him with knife and made him stop the car and forcibly made him to get down from the car and they ran away with his car. All the documents of the car and his mobile phone was also in the car. Thereafter, the complainant ran and reached Sector 17 bus stand and informed the PCR vehicle parked there about the incident. It is also stated in the FIR that he can identify those two unknown persons when they come forward. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the present petitioner was arrested on 12.05.2023.

3. The police did not present the challan within a period of 60 days and the petitioner moved an application for grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 12.07.2023 at 11. 30 a.m. The aforesaid date i.e. 12.07.2023 was the 61st day. Learned JMIC issued notice on the same day for the next day i.e. for 13.07.2023. However on the day when the application was filed in the morning at 11.30 a.m i.e. on 12.07.2023, on the same day in the evening at 4.30 p.m, challan was presented. So far as the applicability of the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C as to whether 60 days are to be counted or 90 days are to be counted since offence under Section 392 IPC was also added, the learned Magistrate considered this issue in detail and came to the conclusion that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, the statutory period would be 60 days and not 90 days and since the challan was presented although on the same day but after the filing of the application by the petitioner for grant of default bail, the right for grant of default bail became absolute in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday Mohan Lal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 453 and M Ravindran Vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 485 Therefore, the learned JMIC decided that it is a fit case for grant of default bail to the petitioner being a statutory right and therefore allowed the application vide Annexure P-3 on 13.07.2023. However in the order granting default bail to the petitioner a condition was imposed that the petitioner shall be released on default bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount before 4.30 p.m. today i.e. on the same date i.e. 13.07.2023 and further directed that the file be now put up as and when the bail bonds are furnished on behalf of accused. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order as contained in para No.9 of the order is reproduced as under:-

“9. In view of the aforesaid two judgments, the Court is satisfied that the prosecution was required to submit the challan/charge-sheet in the present case within 60 days of the arrest of accused. As per the repo