Defendants lose the right to default bail under Section 167(2) if an IPC charge-sheet is filed within stipulated time, regardless of subsequent MCOCA invocation.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. These are the applications claiming entitlement to default bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short).

2. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, I may at the very outset seek guidance from the decision in Aslam Babalal Desai vs. State of Maharashtra ,(1992) 4 SCC 272 wherein the object and scope of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. has been authoritatively stated. Paragraph 36 thereunder reads thus:-

“36. In Natabar Parida and Ors. v. State of Orissa [1975] Crl. L.J. 1212 a two judge Bench, at the earliest considered, the scope of the proviso and held thus:

“…..[T]he command of the Legislature in proviso (a) is that the accused person has got to be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail and cannot be kept in detention beyond the period of 60 days even if the investigation may still be proceeding. In serious offences of criminal conspiracy-murders, dacoities, robberies by inter- state gangs or the like, it may not be possible for the police, in the circumstances as they do exist in the various parts of our country, to complete the investigation within the period of 60 days. Yet the intention of the Legislature seems to be to grant no discretion to the court and to make it obligatory for it to release the accused on bail. Of course, it has been provided in proviso (a) that the accused released on bail under Section 167 will be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII and for the purposes of that Chapter. That may empower the court releasing him on bail, if it considers necessary so to do, to direct that such person be arrested and committed to custody as provided in Sub-section (5) of Section 437 occurring in Chapter XXXIII. It is also clear that after the taking of the cognizance the power of remand is to be exercised under Section 309 of the New Code. But if it is not possible to complete, the investigation within a period of 60 days then even in serious and ghastly types of crimes the accused will be entitled to be released on bail. Such a law may be "paradise for the criminals" but surely it would not be so, as sometimes it is supposed to be, because of the courts, it would be so under the command of the Legislature.”

The same view was reiterated in a recent judgment of this Court by another Bench consisting of one of us (Ahmadi, J.) and K.J. Reddy, J. in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni and it was stated in the context of construing whether the accused would be kept in the police or judicial custody after the expiry of 15 days under Sub- section (2) of Section 167 thus: "Now coming to the object and scope of Section 167 , it is well settled that it is supplementary to Section 57, It is clear from Section 57 that the investigation should be completed in the first instance within 24 hours, if not the arrested person should be brought by the police before a Magistrate as provided under Sub- Section 167 . The law does not authorise the police officer to detain and arrest persons for more than 24 hours exclusive of time necessary for the journey from the place of area to the Magistrate court.”

3. The Supreme Court has observed that the intention of the Legislature seems to be to grant no discretion to the Court and to mak