Manufacturing Unit Must Be in Uttar Pradesh to Bid for Child Nutrition Tender — Delhi High Court Upholds NAFED's Geographical Eligibility Condition for Rs. 2,768 Crore ICDS Supply Contract 800-Strong Mob Unleashed Against ED Officials During PDS Scam Search — Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail, Cites Witness Intimidation Threat Section 29A Cannot Reach Into a Special Statutory Code: Bombay High Court Rules Time Limit Provisions of Arbitration Act Inapplicable to Highway Land Acquisition Arbitrations Mala Fides Are ‘Easily Alleged but Hardly Proved’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash Income Tax Summons” Child Witness Testimony Can Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration If Reliable: Allahabad High Court FD Deposited With Bank Does Not Make Corporate a 'Commercial Purpose' User — But Fraud Allegations Can't Be Tried in Consumer Forum: Supreme Court Movie Flopped, But That's Not Cheating — Supreme Court Quashes Section 420 IPC Against Film Producer Who Borrowed Investment Money on Profit-Sharing Promise No Rape Where Consent Is Conscious and Marriage Impossible: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused of False Promise Charge Sheet Served On Last Day of Service, Punishment After Retirement: Supreme Court Upholds Pay Reduction of Bank Officer Post-Superannuation IAS Officer Convicted for Contempt Gets Fine Waived on Apology, But Gets Stricture: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashing Cannot Become a Mini-Trial: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Halt Rape Case Linked to ‘Exorcism’ and Blackmail NDPS | Prosecution Cannot Pin Cannabis Cultivation on One Co-Owner Without Proof: Bombay HC Acquits Seventeen Years of Waiting is Itself Punishment: Calcutta High Court Balances Conviction with Constitutional Compassion Bigger Truck, Damaged Motorcycle — But Insurance Company Cannot Apportion Negligence Without Examining the Driver: Gujarat High Court Tenant Cannot Bequeath Tenancy Rights by Will Under HP Tenancy Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court A Registered Sale Deed And Mutation Cannot Override Fundamental Principle That Vendor Cannot Convey Better Title Than He Possesses: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Recovery of the Dead Body Is Not an Absolute Requirement for Conviction: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Supplemental Agreement Signed Under Threat Of Contract Termination Cannot Negate Contractor's Claim For Extra Expenditure: Kerala High Court No Bail Without Hearing the Victim: Kerala High Court Declares Orders Passed in Violation of SC/ST Act ‘Non-Est’ False Promise, Pregnancy, and Denial of Paternity: Telangana High Court Grants Bail Amid Pending DNA Evidence

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