Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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