whether while releasing the appellantaccused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., any condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court, could have been imposed?
The circumstances while considering the regular bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, while considering the application for default bail/statutory bail. Under the circumstances, the condition imposed by the High Court to deposit Rs.8,00,000/, while releasing the appellant on default bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Now so far as condition no. (d) imposed by the High Court, namely, directing the appellant to report before the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned, the same is also unsustainable, as it is too harsh. Instead, condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on breach of such condition. 11 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals succeed. Condition No. (b) of order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the High Court in Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020, i.e., directing the appellant to deposit Rs.8,00,000/ to the credit of crime No. 31 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, while releasing the appellant on default bail, is hereby quashed and set aside. Condition no. (d), namely, directing the appellant to report before the concerned police station at 10:00 a.m. daily, until further orders for interrogation is hereby modified to the extent and it is directed that the appellant shall cooperate with the investigating agency and shall report the concerned police station as and when called for investigation/interrogation and on noncooperation, the consequences including cancellation of the bail shall follow. Rest of the conditions imposed by the High Court in order dated 24.06.2020 are maintained.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 681682 OF 2020
(Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos.43864387/2020)
Saravanan …Appellant
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
dated 24.06.2020 in Criminal O.P.(MD) No. 6214 of 2020 and
order dated 27.07.2020 in Criminal M.P.(MD) No. 3622 of 2020
passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, by
which the High Court has released the appellant on default
bail/statutory bail, on condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/
(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the credit of crime No. 31 of 2019
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil,
1
Kanyakumari District, the original accused has preferred the
present appeals.
3. That the appellant herein was arrested and remanded to the
judicial custody on 31.01.2020 for the offences punishable under
Section 420 of the IPC in Crime No.31 of 2019 on the file of the
D.C.B. Police Station, Kanyakumari District. That the appellant
herein filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate
seeking bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. That the wife of the
appellant filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate and
assured to pay Rs.7,00,000/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) and the
balance amount to be paid on or before 06.04.2020, against the
alleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/ (Rupees Fifteen lakhs Sixty
Seven thousand Three hundred thirty eight only). Therefore, by
order dated 3.2.2020, the learned Magistrate released the
appellant on bail on the conditions stated in the said order. One
of the conditions was directing the appellant to deposit
Rs.7,00,000/ in the Court, and the balance amount of Rs.
8,67,338/ was directed to be deposited on or before 06.04.2020.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with condition nos. 2 and
3 of the order passed by the learned Magistrate releasing the
appellant on bail, i.e, directing the appellant to deposit
2
Rs.7,00,000/, out of the total alleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/
and the balance to be deposited on or before 6.4.2020, the
appellant approached the High Court by way of Criminal OP(MD)
No. 6214 of 2020. The High Court dismissed the said application
with liberty to the appellant to approach the Magistrate Court for
any modification and observed that if any modification is
required, the same may be considered by the Magistrate. That
thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the learned
Sessions Court being Criminal M.P. No. 1695/2020 to release the
appellant on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2),
Cr.P.C. It was the case on behalf of the appellant that he was
arrested and remanded on 31.01.2020 and he is inside the jail
for more than 101 days and the investigation is not completed
and the police has not filed the final report within the period
provided under Section 167 Cr.P.C. The said application came to
be dismissed by the learned Sessions Court on the ground that
earlier when the appellant applied for regular bail and which was
allowed on condition to deposit Rs.7,00,000/ in the Court and
the same has not been complied with, and despite the liberty
reserved by the High Court to approach the Magistrate Court for
modification of the conditions, instead of doing so, the appellant
3
has filed an application for default bail/statutory bail under
Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, the learned Sessions Court
dismissed the said application.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court
and prayed to release the appellant on default bail/statutory bail.
It was the case on behalf of the appellant that nondeposit of any
amount which was required to be deposited pursuant to the
order passed by the learned Magistrate, imposed while releasing
the appellant on regular bail under Section 437, Cr.P.C., shall
not come in the way of the appellantaccused in getting default
bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. It was
submitted that the default bail/statutory bail under Section
167(2), Cr.P.C. is mandatory bail, provided the conditions in
Section 167 Cr.P.C. are satisfied, i.e., investigation is not
completed and the chargesheet/report is not filed by the
investigating agency within the time stipulated under Section 167
Cr.P.C. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order
dated 24.06.2020 accepted the same, however, considering the
earlier undertaking given by the wife of the appellant in the Court
of the learned Magistrate while considering the regular bail
application under Section 437, Cr.P.C., i.e., to deposit
4
Rs.7,00,000/, while releasing the appellant on default
bail/statutory bail, the High Court has imposed the condition
that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/ before
the learned Magistrate. That thereafter, the appellant preferred
application being Criminal MP(MD) No. 3622 of 2020 before the
High Court to modify condition nos. (b) and (d) in Criminal
OP(MD) No. 6214/2020 by which the appellant was directed to
deposit Rs.8,00,000/ before the learned Judicial Magistrate and
the appellant was directed to report before the concerned police
station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation.
By the impugned order dated 27.07.2020, the High Court has
dismissed the said application for modification observing that
earlier wife of the appellant filed affidavit before the learned
Magistrate to deposit Rs.7,00,000/ and the alleged amount is
Rs.32,23,073/, condition nos. (b) and (d) in order dated
24.06.2020 in Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214/2020 are not required
to be modified. Hence, the present appeals.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
vehemently submitted that condition nos. (b) and (d) imposed by
the High Court imposed while releasing the appellant on default
bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C is contrary to the
5
scheme of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as
observed by this Court in catena of decisions, the scheme of Code
of Criminal Procedure delineates that provisions of Section 167
Cr.P.C. give due regard to the personal liberty of a person.
Without submission of charge sheet within 60 days or 90 days,
as may be applicable, an accused cannot be detained by the
Police. The provision gives due recognition to the personal liberty.
It is submitted that as held by this Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul
v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, where investigation is not
completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, no
chargesheet is filed on the 60th or 90th day, accused applies for
default bail and is prepared to furnish bail, accused becomes
entitled to default bail, it cannot be frustrated either by the
prosecution or the Court. It is submitted that it is further held
that accused need not make out any grounds for grant of default
bail but only needs to state that 60/90 days, as the case may be,
have expired, chargesheet not filed, he is entitled to bail and
willing to furnish the same. It is submitted that therefore
condition nos. (b) and (d) imposed by the High Court while
releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail are against
the scheme of Section 167, Cr. P.C.
6
6.1 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant that affidavit filed by the wife of the appellant
before the learned Magistrate to deposit Rs.7,00,000/ and the
earlier order passed by the learned Magistrate to release the
appellant on deposit of Rs.15, 67,338/ was with respect to
regular bail under Section 437, Cr.P.C. and the same shall not
come in the way of the appellant in getting the default
bail/statutory bail, if a case is made out under Section 167(2),
Cr.P.C. It is submitted that, as such, and in fact the High Court
has accepted the same and has released the appellant on default
bail/statutory bail, however, with condition to deposit
Rs.8,00,000/ on the ground that while considering the regular
bail application under Section 437, Cr.P.C., the wife of the
appellant agreed to and filed affidavit to deposit Rs.7,00,000/. It
is submitted that condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/ while
releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail on the
aforesaid ground would defeat the very purpose of grant of
default bail/statutory bail. It is submitted that while considering
the default bail/statutory bail, the only thing which is required to
be considered and the statutory requirement is that the statutory
7
period for filing the chargesheet or challan has expired and the
accused is prepared to furnish the bail.
6.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
present appeals and delete condition nos. (b) and (d) of order
dated 24.06.2020 passed by the High Court in Criminal OP(MD)
No. 6214 of 2020.
7. Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State has tried to support the
impugned order(s) passed by the High Court by submitting that
as earlier the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit before the
learned Magistrate to deposit Rs.7,00,000/ and the alleged
amount was Rs.15,67,338/, probably the High Court has
imposed condition no. (b) directing the appellant to deposit
Rs.8,00,000/.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
The short question which is posed for the consideration of
this Court is, whether while releasing the appellantaccused on
default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., any
condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court,
could have been imposed?
8
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and considering the scheme and the object and purpose of
default bail/statutory bail, we are of the opinion that the High
Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that the
appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/ while releasing
the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears that the
High Court has imposed such a condition taking into
consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the
regular bail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of
the appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/.
However, as observed by this Court in catena of decisions and
more particularly in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra),
where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90
days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or
90th day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default bail, and
the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused
applies for default bail and furnish bail. Therefore, the only
requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under
Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than
60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as
the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no
9
chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies
for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other
condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be
imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on
default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and
purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. As observed
by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) and in
other decisions, the accused is entitled to default bail/statutory
bail, subject to the eventuality occurring in Section 167, Cr.P.C.,
namely, investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days,
as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day
and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to
furnish bail.
9.1 As observed hereinabove and even from the impugned
orders passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court
while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail has
imposed the condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/ taking into
consideration that earlier before the learned Magistrate and while
considering the regular bail application under Section 437
Cr.P.C., the wife of the accused filed an affidavit to deposit
Rs.7,00,000/. That cannot be a ground to impose the condition
10
to deposit the amount involved, while granting default
bail/statutory bail.
9.2. The circumstances while considering the regular bail
application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, while
considering the application for default bail/statutory bail. Under
the circumstances, the condition imposed by the High Court to
deposit Rs.8,00,000/, while releasing the appellant on default
bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
10. Now so far as condition no. (d) imposed by the High Court,
namely, directing the appellant to report before the concerned
police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for
interrogation is concerned, the same is also unsustainable, as it
is too harsh. Instead, condition which can be imposed is
directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer
in completing the investigation and to remain present before the
concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and
when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can
approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on
breach of such condition.
11
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeals succeed. Condition No. (b) of order dated
24.06.2020 passed by the High Court in Criminal OP(MD) No.
6214 of 2020, i.e., directing the appellant to deposit
Rs.8,00,000/ to the credit of crime No. 31 of 2019 before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari
District, while releasing the appellant on default bail, is hereby
quashed and set aside. Condition no. (d), namely, directing the
appellant to report before the concerned police station at 10:00
a.m. daily, until further orders for interrogation is hereby
modified to the extent and it is directed that the appellant shall
cooperate with the investigating agency and shall report the
concerned police station as and when called for
investigation/interrogation and on noncooperation, the
consequences including cancellation of the bail shall follow. Rest
of the conditions imposed by the High Court in order dated
24.06.2020 are maintained.
12
13. The appeals are allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms.
…………………………………..J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
………………………………….J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
OCTOBER 15, 2020 [M.R. SHAH]
13
