Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Krishna Murari, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Ritu Chhabaria – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 60 of 2023
Decided On : 26-04-2023
(A) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Enforcement of fundamental rights – Right to invoke Article 32 is a fundamental right in itself, that exists to protect and safeguard other fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of Constitution – Court must exercise its jurisdiction in matters where there is abuse of fundamental rights – Relief of statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is a fundamental right directly flowing from Article 21 of Constitution of India and violation of such a right directly attracts consideration under Article 32 of Constitution – Objections regarding maintainability of petition under Article 32 of Constitution rejected – However, Every court, when invoked to exercise its powers, must be mindful of relief sought and must act as a forum confined to such relief – In present, this Court is not a court of appeal but a court of writ and is inclined to limit its jurisdiction only to personal liberty of writ petitioner’s husband and impugned points of law. (Paras 11, 12,13, 14 and 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 167(2) – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Default bail – FIR lodged under Section 120(B) read with Section 420 of IPC along with Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Right of default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of Constitution of India – First investigation is to be completed and only then can a charge-sheet or a complaint be filed within stipulated period and failure to do so would trigger statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. – Without completing investigation of a case, a charge-sheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by investigating agency only to deprive arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. – Such a charge-sheet, if filed by investigating authority without first completing investigation, would not extinguish right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. – Trial court, in such cases, cannot continue to remand arrested person beyond maximum stipulated time without offering arrested person default bail – Interim order of bail passed in favour of accused is made absolute. (Paras 24, 25, 33, 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by writ petitioner herein seeking the release of her husband on default bail. Writ petition also raises an issue of grave importance of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Findings of Court:
Process of remand and custody, in their practical manifestations, create a huge disparity of power between investigating authority and the accused. While arrest and remand are extremely crucial for smooth functioning of the investigation authority for the purpose of attaining justice, however, it is also extremely important to be cognizant of a power imbalance. Therefore, it becomes essential to place certain checks and balances upon the Investigation Agency in order to prevent harassment of accused persons at their hands.
Result : Writ Petition disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The filing of a charge-sheet or prosecution complaint before the completion of investigation is not permissible solely to deprive an accused of their right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. (!)
If a charge-sheet is filed without completing the investigation, it does not extinguish the accused’s right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. (!)
The trial court cannot continue to remand an accused beyond the maximum stipulated period if the investigation is still pending, especially when such remand is used to obstruct the right to default bail. The court is required to offer default bail in such circumstances. (!)
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental right that flows from the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty, and its violation can be directly challenged under the constitutional remedy provided by Article 32 of the Constitution of India. (!) (!)
The process of remand and custody must be exercised with caution due to the imbalance of power between the investigating agency and the accused, with safeguards in place to prevent harassment and arbitrary detention. (!) (!)
Filing supplementary or incomplete charge-sheets during investigation with the intent to extend custody beyond the permissible period and to deny the right to default bail is unlawful. Such actions violate the statutory and constitutional rights of the accused. (!) (!) (!)
The court emphasizes that the enforcement of fundamental rights, especially those related to personal liberty, is a core function, and procedural safeguards must be upheld to prevent abuse of power by the state. (!) (!)
In the case at hand, the continued detention of the accused during pending investigation, despite the filing of incomplete charge-sheets aimed at preventing default bail, was found to be unlawful and arbitrary. The interim bail granted earlier was made absolute, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. (!) (!) (!)
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Murari, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the writ petitioner herein seeking the release of her husband on default bail. The writ petition also raises an issue of grave importance of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
FACTS
2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present writ petition are that an FIR was lodged under Section 120(B) read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) along with Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the writ petitioner’s husband was not named.
3. Subsequently, two supplementary charge-sheets were filed, wherein the writ petitioner’s husband (hereinafter referred to as “accused”) was made a prosecution witness in the supplementary charge-sheet dated 26.05.2020. Multiple other supplementary charge-sheets were later filed, and the accused was not named in any of the said charge-sheets.
4. The investigation was then transferred to another investigating officer, and the accused was then arrested by CBI and was remanded to custody on 28.04.2022. Multiple other supplementary charge-sheets were then filed, wherein the accused herein was named as a suspect, and the remand of the accused under Section 309(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.PC’) was renewed and was continued from time to time, and he was never released on default bail.
5. Subsequently, vide I.A No. 37424/2023, the petitioner sought to incorporate additional grounds and prayers for seeking bail in the writ petition, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2023, and interim bail was granted.
6. It is against this continuation of custody, and the scuttling of relief of default bail, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ. Every Supplementary charge-sheet filed, as per the writ petitioner herein, is an attempt to ensure that her husband is not released on default bail.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that:
I. The Respondent has admitted in writing in the supplementary charge-sheet that the investigation is still pending, and in light of the same the trial court ought not to have issued process and remanded the petitioner’s husband under Section 309 Cr.PC.
II. The accused’s fundamental rights are in prejudice due to continued custody on grounds of investigation not being completed. It was argued that the provisions of the CrPC do not empower continued remand to custody beyond 60 days if the investigation is still in progress. For this, the learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) 2 SCC 485.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that:
I. The present writ is not maintainable, and for the grant of bail, the accused herein should have either approached the High Court against the order of the Magistrate refusing default bail or filed a Special Leave Petition against the said order invoking provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
II. The contention of the petitioner that the accused is not named in the FIR is not a relevant submission, as the FIR is not a complete document, and is only the first step to set the criminal procedure in motion. To support the contention, learned counsel relied on the case of State Of Bihar & Others v. J.A.C Saldanha & Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 554.
III. The supplementary charge-sheet filed on 25.06.2022 is a complete document in respect to the offence committed by the persons arraigned in the said supplementary charge-sheet, therefore no right to default bail has been accrued in favor of the petitioner’s husband.
ISSUES
9. In light of the abovementioned arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the following three issues arise for our consideration:
(1) Default bail – Without completing investigation of a case, a charge-sheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by investigating agency only to deprive arrested accused of his right to default....
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) is absolute and cannot be denied even during further investigation, aligning with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a fundamental right linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and its applicability to subsequent arrestees after ....
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right that cannot be extinguished by the mere filing of an incomplete chargesheet.
(1) Default bail – Once challan has been filed, question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only with reference to merits of case under provisions relating to grant of bail to accused ....
Once chargesheet has been filed within the stipulated time, the question of grant of statutory bail or default does not arise.
Point of Law : Fact of the accused absconding or delaying investigation during period of he being absconding would not be relevant for consideration of application Subsection (2) of Section 167 of C....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
