Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for State of Punjab VS Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha...

Checking relevance for Zahur Haider Zaidi VS Central Bureau of Investigation...

Checking relevance for Bikramjit Singh VS State of Punjab...

Checking relevance for Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya VS State of Gujarat...

Checking relevance for PRADEEP RAM VS STATE OF JHARKHAND...

Checking relevance for Ritu Chhabaria VS Union of India...

Ritu Chhabaria VS Union of India - 2023 4 Supreme 525 : The filing of a supplementary charge-sheet or a new charge-sheet in a different FIR does not extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC if the investigation in the original case remains incomplete. The right to default bail is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution, and it is not lost merely because a new charge-sheet is filed in a different case or FIR. The investigation must be completed before a charge-sheet can be filed, and without completion of investigation, the accused retains the right to default bail. Therefore, a change in custody from one FIR to another does not exhaust the default bail right in the earlier FIR.Checking relevance for X VS State of Maharashtra...

Checking relevance for IQBAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN...

Checking relevance for Mangneikam Haokip VS Officer-in-Charge, Chassad Police Station, P. O. & P. S. Kamjong...

Mangneikam Haokip VS Officer-in-Charge, Chassad Police Station, P. O. & P. S. Kamjong - 2023 0 Supreme(Manipur) 26 : The right to default bail is not exhausted when custody changes from one FIR to another. Once the accused has applied for default bail under Section 167 CrPC, the right remains enforceable even if the accused is subsequently remanded in a different FIR. The court held that the right to default bail continues to be enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the bail application; or subsequent filing of the charge-sheet or a report seeking extension of time by the prosecution before the court; or filing of the charge-sheet during the interregnum when challenge to the rejection of the bail application is pending before a higher court. This means that the default bail right in one FIR is not extinguished merely because the accused is transferred to custody in another FIR.Checking relevance for Deep Chandra Aggrawal VS State of Uttarakhand...

Checking relevance for Gautam Saini VS State of Rajasthan...

Checking relevance for Ajaypal Singh VS State of Punjab...

Checking relevance for Rahul Sharma VS State Of Rajasthan, Through P. P. ...

Checking relevance for Damodar VS State of Madhya Pradesh...

Checking relevance for Rakesh Kumar Paul VS State of Assam...

Checking relevance for State Through Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Special Branch, Delhi VS Jaspal Singh Gill...

Checking relevance for VINOD BHANDARI VS STATE OF M. P. ...

Checking relevance for Dataram Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh...

Checking relevance for Hamida VS Rashid @ Rasheed...

Checking relevance for Shubham Bitalu VS State Of Himachal Pradesh...

Checking relevance for Birbal Murmu @ Panchu Murmu VS State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Munger...

Checking relevance for Mohammad Amin Illahie VS Union Territory of J&K...

Mohammad Amin Illahie VS Union Territory of J&K - 2020 0 Supreme(J&K) 464 : The change in custody from one FIR to another does not exhaust default bail in the earlier FIR. According to the Supreme Court''''s ratio in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, custody in one case cannot be counted toward a different case registered against the accused for a separate offence. The period of custody undergone by the appellants in FIR No. 69/2018 cannot be added to the period of custody in FIR No. 229/2017. Therefore, the right to claim default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC read with Section 43D of the ULA(P) Act does not accrue based on combined custody across different FIRs, as each case constitutes a separate investigation.Checking relevance for PRADEEP N SHARMA VS STATE OF GUJARAT...

Checking relevance for State of Rajasthan VS Ravishankar Srivastava...

State of Rajasthan VS Ravishankar Srivastava - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1486 : The arrest of the main accused in a second F.I.R. cannot be treated as deemed custody in the first F.I.R. for the purpose of triggering default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, a change in custody from one FIR to another does not exhaust or trigger default bail in the earlier FIR. The court held that the accused is not entitled to be released on bail under the proviso (a) of Section 167(2) merely because of the arrest in a second F.I.R., especially when the charge-sheet in the first F.I.R. was not filed within the stipulated period from the date of so-called deemed custody, which is not validly established.

• Change in Fact Situation or Law - A substantial change in circumstances or legal framework is required to revisit or alter earlier judicial decisions, including bail orders. Cosmetic or minor changes do not warrant interference. ["Sonu Sahani vs State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Rafiq Khan VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"]

• Successive Bail Applications - Courts recognize the maintainability of second or subsequent bail applications, especially when there is a significant change in circumstances, such as length of custody or new facts. However, these applications should be considered by the same judge who earlier decided the matter to maintain judicial discipline. Reversing earlier orders without substantial change is discouraged. ["Meera W/o Lt. Bhur Singh Dulawat VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"], ["Meera W/o Late Bhur Singh Dulawat VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"], ["Amit Madhukar Bhogale VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes"]

• Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC - Default bail is granted when the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period, typically 180 days, and the prosecution fails to file a charge sheet. The period can be extended, but if the delay is unreasonable, the accused is entitled to default bail. Courts emphasize informing the accused of this right and ensuring proper procedural adherence. ["Rajpal @ Billu VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Irfan Moiuddeen Saiyyed VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["Kamal Virmani VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"]

• Effect of Change in Custody - Lengthy custody after rejection of bail can be a valid ground for granting bail in subsequent applications. The court considers whether the delay or change in circumstances justifies a different decision. ["Meera W/o Lt. Bhur Singh Dulawat VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"], ["Meera W/o Late Bhur Singh Dulawat VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"], ["Amit Madhukar Bhogale VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes"]

• Impact of Multiple FIRs and Custody - Arrests in connection with multiple FIRs and prolonged custody can influence bail considerations. Courts may evaluate the cumulative circumstances, including whether the investigation delays or new FIRs substantively change the fact situation to justify bail. ["Kamal Virmani VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"], ["Rafiq Khan VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"]

• Judicial Discipline and Procedural Fairness - Courts advocate that bail applications should be filed before the same judge who previously handled the case, especially if circumstances have changed, to uphold judicial discipline and avoid inconsistent decisions. ["Bipin Sunny, S/o. Sunny VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - Kerala"], ["Meera W/o Lt. Bhur Singh Dulawat VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]

Analysis and Conclusion:A change in custody or facts from one FIR to another alone does not automatically exhaust default bail rights under earlier FIRs. Default bail is primarily triggered by delays in investigation beyond statutory limits, not by changes in FIRs or custody status alone. However, significant changes such as extended custody, delays, or new facts can justify reconsideration of bail, provided they are substantial and properly evaluated by the same judicial authority. Courts emphasize maintaining procedural discipline, consistency, and a focus on the material change in circumstances when dealing with successive bail applications or changes in legal facts.