1. Entitlement to default bail due to non-filing of charge sheet in the seizing court — Versus — Validity of combined charge sheet filed within the statutory period. (Para 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 668
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Venkatesan Balasubramaniyan – Appellant
Versus
The Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Bangalore – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.801 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1452/2019)
Villayutham Nagu – Appellant
Versus
The Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Bangalore – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.802 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1820/2019)
Vijaya Kumar L. – Appellant
Versus
The Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Bangalore – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.803 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1443/2019)
Decided On : 20-11-2020
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Cancellation of default bail – Bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. can be cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.
Cancellation of default bail – Bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. can be cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.
Subject
Bail - Cancellation of Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 167(2) and 439(2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 36A(1)(d) – Cancellation of default bail – Appellants booked under drug charges – Bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. could have been cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. – There is ample material in complaint that transportation of narcotic substance started from Omerga, Maharashtra and was being allegedly to be taken to Chennai and intercepted at Hyderabad – Complaint, which has been brought on record gives detailed facts including journey and interception of appellants at Hyderabad – Combined complaint having been filed well within 180 days, High Court did not commit any error in cancelling default bail granted to appellants – There is no ground for interfering with impugned judgment /order of High Court – It is open for appellants to file regular bail application before Omerga Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. afresh, which may be considered on merits. (Paras 10, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeals have been filed against common judgment dated 30.11.2018 of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.10524 of 2018 filed by the respondent before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2018, the petition filed by respondent Under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been allowed cancelling the bail granted to the appellants by order dated 12.07.2018 by Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
Findings of Court:
A combined complaint taking care of both offences was filed before the Special Court, Omerga as noted above wherein offences committed by the accused were also inquired and dealt with. There is ample material in the complaint that transportation of narcotic substance started from Omerga, Maharashtra and was being allegedly to be taken to Chennai and intercepted at Hyderabad. The complaint, which has been brought on the record gives the detailed facts including the journey and the interception of appellants at Hyderabad.
Result : Appeals dismissed
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - Bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. can be cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. (!) (!) - Charge sheet filed within 180 days invalidates the claim for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (!) (!) - Non-communication of charge sheet filing to the trial court is a procedural error affecting bail validity (!) (!) - A combined complaint incorporating all offences must be considered when evaluating bail cancellation (!) (!) - Appellants retain the right to file fresh bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after default bail is set aside (!)
What is the scope for cancelling default bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Can a combined complaint filed within 180 days affect the grant of default bail under Section 167(2)?
What are the procedural requirements regarding notification of charge sheet filing to the trial court in bail proceedings?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Raj Narayanan, S.C.V. Vimal Pani, L. Maheswari, A. Lakshminarayanan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate
For the Petitioner(s):M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Raj Narayanan, S.C.V. Vimal Pani, L. Maheswari, A. Lakshminarayanan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Combined charge sheet filed within 180 days precludes entitlement to default bail — Miscommunication regarding filing does not validate an erroneous bail order. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 )
3. Bail erroneously or illegally granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. can be cancelled by the High Court or Court of Session under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 10 )
4. Appeals dismissed — High Court order cancelling default bail upheld — Liberty granted to file fresh regular bail applications. (Para 13 )
5. Can bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. be cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.?
Yes. If a person is illegally or erroneously released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., such bail can be cancelled by the High Court or Court of Session by passing an appropriate order under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 10 )
6. Does the filing of a combined charge sheet in a different court within the statutory period prevent the grant of default bail?
Yes. If a charge sheet is filed within the stipulated period (such as 180 days under the NDPS Act), the accused is not entitled to the benefit of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 9 , 12 )
7. What is the effect of miscommunication regarding the filing of a charge sheet on the validity of a default bail order?
Miscommunication regarding the filing of a charge sheet does not entitle the accused to default bail if the charge sheet was actually filed within the statutory period; such an order is considered erroneous and subject to cancellation. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted. These three appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 30.11.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.10524 of 2018 filed by the respondent before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2018, the petition filed by respondent Under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been allowed cancelling the bail granted to the appellants by order dated 12.07.2018 by Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The facts and issues in these appeals being similar, it shall be sufficient to refer to the pleadings in Criminal Appeal arising out SLP (Crl.) No.1452 of 2019- Venaktesan Balasubramaniyan Vs. The Intelligence Officer for deciding all these appeals, brief facts of which are as under:-
2.1 On 11.01.2018, car bearing No. KA 39 M 2117 was intercepted by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as “D.R.I.”), Hyderabad at toll plaza, Kamkole Village, Munnipalli Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana in which appellants (driver and two men) were travelling. The appellants along with other two persons introduced themselves on being asked as to whether they have secreted anything illegal in the car, the appellant’s replied in negative. The Officers searched the car and found false casing behind the rear seats on the side walls of the boot of the car with metal doors. The appellants’ opened the door and few transparent packets with off-white coloured packets were found in the casing attached to the walls of the boot. The appellants’ told that packets were of Narcotic drug, which were loaded in the car by a person named Suraj at Omerga, Osmanabad District Maharashtra, which were to be delivered at Chennai. The Officers in presence of Panchas and the appellants opened the packet and tested the materials in the packet. The appellants were taken to the office of D.R.I., Hyderabad. The total quantity of packets (Methaqualone) weighed to be 45.874 Kgs.
2.2 On 12.01.2018, the appellants were arrested in exercise of power conferred under Section 42 of NDPS Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1985”). The D.R.I. officers prepared a crime report against all the accused-appellants for commission of offence under Sections 22, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act and produced them before the VI Additional CMM, Hyderabad. The duty Magistrate on 12.01.2018 allowed the application for remand and the appellants were remanded till 25.01.2018. On 25.01.2018, the appellants-accused persons were produced before the Special Sessions Judge Court, D.R.I., Hyderabad. Remand of the appellants was extended from time to time. On 10.07.2018 the appellants were remanded only for two days since 180 days prescribed for filing charge sheet were coming to an end on 12.07.2018.
2.3 On 12.07.2018, since 180 days had expired, the appellants filed bail application. Learned Special Sessions Judge, Hyderabad granted bail to the appellants under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. On 12.07.2018, a letter was received from the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, Maharashtra asking to handover the custody of appellants to D.R.I., Bangalore as they were required to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, Maharashtra in Special Case (NDPS) No.17 of 2018. The Sessions Court, Hyderabad granted the custody of three accused on 13.07.2018 to the D.R.I., Bangalore. D.R.I., Bangalore produced the appellants before Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, Maharashtra on 14.07.2018 where they were remanded till 27.07.2018.
2.4 On 02.08.2018, D.R.I., Bangalore filed application before the Special Court, Hyderabad to transfer the records in the Hyderabad case to Omerga Sessions Court. On 24.08.2018, the Special Sessions Judge, Hyderabad transferred the records to the Omerga Court. When Special Court, Omerga, Maharashtra came to know that the appellants-accused have already been granted bail on 12.07.2018 before which date charge sheet was already filed before the Omerga Court on 06.07.2018 which wa
