Calcutta HC Slams CWC for 'Bad & Illegal' Declaration of Child as 'Abandoned' Despite DNA Proof; Quashes Adoption Order, Mandates Fresh Inquiry With Biological Parents' Hearing 'Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Eclipsed By Parental Authority': Allahabad High Court Slaps ₹25 Lakh Compensation On Father And State For Unlawful Confinement Of Adult Women Over Voluntary Religious Conversion Co-Operative Bank Not Obligated To Deduct TDS On Interest Paid To Non-Member Co-Operative Societies Under Section 194A(3)(v) Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Not Sufficient Ground For Externment; It Is An Extraordinary Measure To Be Used Sparingly: Karnataka High Court Good Conduct And Strength Of Character Always Lie In The Choices One Makes: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge Of RPF Constables For Suppressing Criminal Antecedents 'Time Is Of Extreme Essence': Supreme Court Declines To Interfere With Public Procurement Tenders Over Belated Challenge And Laches "'Hanging Is Not Cruel, Torturous Or Degrading': Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Execution By Hanging Under CrPC & BNSS" 'Backdoor Entry Cannot Be Regularized By Judicial Sympathy': Supreme Court Quashes Illegal Absorptions And Repudiates Political Machinations In Public Employment Custodial Interrogation Indispensable In Cross-Border Drug Cases Involving Commercial Quantities, Denies Pre-Arrest Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'Cannot Take Advantage Of Your Own Wrong': Delhi High Court Rejects Husband's Plea For Divorce After Defying Restitution Decree Spousal Privacy Is Not Absolute: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Secretly Recorded Audio Evidence Admissible To Prove Adultery 'No Premium, No Risk': Supreme Court Strictly Enforces Section 64VB Insurance Act, Striking Down Retrospective Covers 'An Appeal Is Not Just A Statutory Right, It Is A Constitutional Right': Supreme Court Scraps High Court's Suo Motu Enhancement Of Life Sentence Sale With Condition To Repurchase Is Not A Mortgage: Gujarat High Court Tax Is On Use, Not On Wreckage: Kerala High Court Quashes ₹10 Lakh Demand, Rules Motor Vehicle Tax Cannot Be Levied On Accident-Wrecked Vehicles Not In Use Pecuniary Jurisdiction Objections Cannot Be Raised For The First Time In Execution Proceedings: Madras High Court 'Cannot Proceed Under SARFAESI If Dues Below ₹20 Lakhs': Punjab & Haryana High Court Protects Homeowners From Eviction, Issues Notice

Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation

20 September 2024 12:09 PM

By: sayum


Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, delivered a ruling in Kamal K.P. vs. State of U.P., granting default bail to the appellant, Kamal K.P., under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The court held that an indefeasible right to bail had accrued to the appellant due to the prosecution's failure to complete the investigation within the statutory period and improper handling of the extension application by the Special Judge. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards and statutory timelines in criminal investigations, particularly under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Kamal K.P. was arrested on March 3, 2023, and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. The case involved serious charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA. The investigation period was extended multiple times, with the charge sheet ultimately filed on July 20, 2023, within 180 days. However, the appellant moved an application for default bail on June 2, 2023, the 91st day of his first remand, arguing that his right to bail had accrued due to the failure to file the charge sheet within 90 days. The Special Judge rejected this application on June 26, 2023, stating that the investigation period had been extended.

The key legal issue was whether the appellant's right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. had been defeated by the extension of the investigation period after the expiry of 90 days. The appellant argued that the Special Court had not extended the investigation period within the required timeframe, and thus an indefeasible right to bail had arisen in his favor. The prosecution contended that the investigation period was extended in accordance with Section 43-D(2) of the UAPA.

The High Court scrutinized the relevant statutory provisions and case law, including the precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like Enforcement Directorate Government of India vs. Kapil Wadhwan and Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency. The Court noted that Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. provides an indefeasible right to bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period, and this right must be honored unless specifically overridden by an extension order made within the statutory period.

The Court found that the application for extension of the investigation period was moved on June 1, 2023 (the 90th day), and was listed for June 2, 2023. However, on June 2, 2023, no order was passed regarding the extension, and only the remand of the appellant was extended till June 5, 2023. It was only on June 5, 2023, that the Special Judge extended the period of investigation by 50 days. By this time, the appellant had already filed an application for default bail on June 2, 2023.

The Court held that an indefeasible right to default bail had accrued in favor of the appellant on June 2, 2023, due to the failure to extend the investigation period within the 90-day limit. The Special Judge's subsequent order extending the investigation period on June 5, 2023, could not extinguish this right. The Court observed, "The right of the accused to be released on default bail remained unaffected by the subsequent application and both the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the High Court erred in holding otherwise."

The Court found that the Special Judge had committed a material illegality by not extending the investigation period within the statutory period and rejecting the default bail application on erroneous grounds. It stated that procedural lapses on the part of the investigating agency or the court could not defeat the statutory right of the appellant to be released on bail.

The Allahabad High Court quashed the impugned order of the Special Judge and granted default bail to Kamal K.P., emphasizing that the right to personal liberty is fundamental and must be safeguarded against arbitrary curtailment. The Court underscored the duty of Special Courts to promptly address applications for extension of investigation periods and the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in criminal cases.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2024

Kamal K.P. vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 2217 of 2023

 

Latest Legal News