Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 2623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Dwivedi, J
Sharad Saurabh Giri – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. ...... of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Dwivedi
For the Respondents: A.G.A.
Right to default bail accrues if application is filed within the statutory period; failing to do so extinguishes that right.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 167(2)(a)(1), 173(2) - Default bail - Rejection of application for grant of default bail filed by revisionist after statutory period of 60 days for completing investigation expired. - The court held that right to default bail accrues in favor of an accused, but must be claimed before the charge sheet is filed. If not, the claim for default bail is extinguished. (Paras 14, 16, 19)
(B) Legal Principle - Application for default bail must be filed within the statutory period; failing to do so extinguishes the right. (Paras 23)
Facts of the case:
Revisionist, named in FIR for corruption, sought default bail after statutory investigation period; application was rejected.
Findings of Court:
The rejection was lawful as application was not filed timely.
Issues: Proper timing for filing default bail applications in connection with charge sheets.
Ratio Decidendi: Default bail is a right if invoked within the stipulated time, but lapsed if sought post-charge sheet filing.
Result: Revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for default bail after charge sheet submission is invalid. (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. factual context regarding fir and arrest details. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. proper timing regarding default bail applications needs to be established. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. default bail right must be claimed timely to be valid. (Para 19 , 23) |
1. Heard Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel for revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Learned counsel for revisionist has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. ...... of 2024 in Court on 04.07.2024, which was taken on record.
3. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the aforesaid Application.
4. In view of the bona fide prayer prayed for by means of aforesaid Application, the learned counsel for revisionist was permitted to correct the address of the revisionist occurring in the cause title of this revision during course of the day.
5. Perused the record.
6. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 27.2.2024 passed by Special Judge, (P.C.) Act, (V.B.U.P.S.E.B.) / Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Case Crime No. 09 of 2023 (Sharad Saurabh Giri v. State) under S.7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , Police Station - Agra Sector (Vigilance Department), District - Meerut, whereby the Application for grant of default bail, under S.167 (2)(a)(1) CrPC filed by the Applicant has been rejected.
7. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 27.12.2023, a prompt FIR dated 27.12.2023 was lodged by first informant - Ravindra Kumar Dubey and was registered as Case Crime No. 09 of 2023 (State v. Sharad Saurabh Giri), under S.7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , Police Station - Agra Sector (Vigilance Department), District - Meerut. In the aforesaid FIR, revisionist Sharad Saurabh Giri has been nominated as solitary named accused.
8. Subsequent to the aforesaid FIR, revisionist was arrested on 27.12.2023 and was sent to judicial remand on 28.12.2023.
9. Upon completion of statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number conducted in terms of Chapter XII CrPC, Investigating Officer submitted a police report dated 26.02.2024 in terms of S.173 (2) CrPC, whereby the Applicant - revisionist has been charge sheeted under S.7 Prevention of Corruption Act
10. Since, according to the revisionist, the charge sheet against the revisionist was submitted after expiry of the statutory period of investigation i.e. 60 days from the date of arrest of Applicant i.e. 27.12.2023, therefore, the Applicant filed an Application before Court below in terms of S.167(2)(a)(1) CrPC seeking default bail.
11. Aforesaid Application filed by revisionist before Court below came to be registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 76 of 2024 (Sharad Saurabh Giri v. State of U.P.). However, the same was rejected, by a detailed order dated 27.2.2024 passed by Special Judge (P.C.) Act, (V.B.U.P.S.E.B.) / Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut.
12. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 27.02.2024, the revisionist has now come to this Court by means of present criminal revision.
13. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that the F.I.R., giving rise to present criminal proceedings, was lodged on 27.12.2023. Subsequent to aforesaid FIR, the revisionist, who is a named accused, was arrested on 2 of 8 27.12.2023. Thereafter, the revisionist was sent to judicial remand on 28.12.2023. However, the police report in terms of S.173(2) CrPC was submitted on 26.02.2024. On the above premise, the learned counsel for revisionist submits that the period of 60 days from the date of arrest of revisionist (27.12.2023), expired on 24.02.2024, whereas the period of 60 days from the date, revisionist was sent to judicial remand (28.12.2023) expired on 25.02.2024.
14. According to the learned counsel for revisionist, since the charge sheet was submitted against revisionist on 26.02.2024 i.e. on the 62nd day from the date of arrest of the revis
