Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir CJI, J. Chelameswar & Vikramajit Sen, JJ.
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain —Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. —Respondents
S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 147 of 2013
Decided on 13.2.2013
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and conclusions are as follows:
Filing of Charge-Sheet Within Time: Once a charge-sheet is filed within the stipulated period under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., the question of granting default bail or statutory bail does not arise. The filing of the charge-sheet is considered sufficient compliance with the investigation period requirements, regardless of whether cognizance has been taken or whether sanction to prosecute has been obtained (!) (!) (!) .
Authority to Extend Detention: The authority of a Magistrate to extend detention beyond the prescribed period (90 days for serious offences or 60 days for other offences) is limited. If the investigation is completed within the stipulated period and the charge-sheet is filed, the Magistrate no longer has the authority to extend detention and must release the accused on bail if they are willing to furnish it (!) (!) (!) .
Effect of Non-Obtaining Sanction: The failure to obtain sanction to prosecute does not affect the validity of the charge-sheet filed within the statutory period or the legality of remand orders passed during this period. Sanction is a separate procedural requirement for prosecution and does not impact the completion of investigation or the filing of the charge-sheet (!) (!) .
Remand and Investigation Stages: The power of remand during investigation is governed by specific provisions, and once the investigation period has expired, further detention without a valid charge-sheet or cognizance is illegal. After filing the charge-sheet, the proceedings shift to the trial stage, where the court's powers to remand are governed by different provisions, namely Section 309 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) (!) .
Rights of the Accused: If the charge-sheet is filed within the prescribed period, the accused's right to statutory or default bail is extinguished. The accused's entitlement to bail thereafter depends on the merits of the case, not on the procedural timing of investigation completion (!) (!) (!) .
Conclusion: The filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period is a key factor that concludes the investigation phase and renders any further detention beyond the period illegal. The absence of sanction to prosecute does not invalidate the charge-sheet or the detention orders passed during the investigation period. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to release on bail solely on the ground of non-obtaining of sanction, provided the charge-sheet was filed timely (!) (!) .
In summary, once a charge-sheet is filed within the statutory period, the legal basis for default or statutory bail ceases, and the accused's detention beyond this period without proper proceedings is unlawful.
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, CJI—This Special Leave Petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 17th December, 2012, passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in CRLA No. 4601 of 2012, dismissing the same and directing the Special Judge, in seisin of the matter, to expedite the hearing on framing of charge, as had been directed by this Court on 12th October, 2012, while disposing of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6463 of 2012, filed by the co-accused Pradeep Raisoni.
2. This case has thrown into focus certain important issues regarding the right of an accused to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”. One of such issues concerns the power of the Magistrate to pass orders of remand even beyond the period envisaged under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. In the instant case, despite charge-sheet having been filed, no cognizance has been taken on the basis thereof. The learned Magistrate has, however, continued to pass remand orders, without apparently having proceeded to the stage contemplated under Section 309 Cr.P.C. In order to appreciate the issues which have cropped up during the hearing of the instant case, it is necessary to briefly set out the facts giving rise to the said questions, which have fallen for determination.
3. As per the prosecution case, the Petitioner, Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain, is alleged to have misappropriated amounts meant for development of slums in Jalgaon city, when he was functioning as the Minister of Housing and Slum Area Development, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Initially, charge-sheet was filed against certain persons claiming to be the contractors and the Vice-President of the Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon. Thereafter, during investigation the Petitioner was arrested on 11th March, 2012, and while charge-sheet was filed against the four other accused persons on 25th April, 2012, a supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against the Petitioner herein on 1st June, 2012. For a while, the Petitioner was released on interim bail, but upon rejection of his application for bail on merit, he was again taken into custody on 5th July, 2012.
4. What has been stressed upon on behalf of the Petitioner is that, although, charge-sheet had been filed within the time stipulated under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., sanction to prosecute the Petitioner had not been obtained, as a result whereof, no cognizance was taken of the offence. Notwithstanding the above, remand orders continued to be made and the Petitioner remained in magisterial custody.
5. At this stage, it may be pertinent to point out that the Petitioner is an accused in respect of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 411, 406, 408, 465, 466, 468, 471, 177, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as “IPC” and also under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”, in Crime No. 13 of 2006, registered with the City Police Station Jalgaon.
6. Appearing in support of the Special Leave Petition, Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior Advocate, submitted that since the statutory period of 90 days, envisaged under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., had lapsed, the Petitioner could not have been remanded to custody, as had been done by the learned Special Judge, who is yet to take cognizance for want of sanction. Mr. Lalit submitted that the Petitioner was, therefore, entitled to be released on bail forthwith, since the orders of remand passed by the learned Magistrate after a period of 90 days were without jurisdiction and, therefore, invalid in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Mr. Lalit also submitted that Section 309 Cr.P.C., which also deals with remand of the accused under certain circumstances, does not apply to the allegations relating to the provisions of the PC Act, inasmuch as, there is no committal proceeding contemplated in the proce
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
