SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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