Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Default Bail No More As Easy As Earlier U/S 167(2) Cr.P.C. – New Guidelines - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court ruled  that if a strong case can be made from the chargesheet that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime, the bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. can be revoked.

Supreme Court held  "The bare filing of the chargesheet subsequent to a person being released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be a ground to cancel the bail of a person who is released on default bail,"

A case was first filed under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A case was then filed in accordance with Section 302 read in conjunction with Section 120-B of the IPC.The respondent was detained by the State Police Agency and taken into judicial custody.

The 90-day waiting period was no longer valid. The respondent submitted a bail application for default bail in accordance with Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on the very day after the 90-day period had expired.

The JMFC approved the default bail for the respondent. As per the decision, the respondent was freed on bail.

The C.B.I. then filed a supplementary chargesheet under Sections 201 and 120-B read with 302 and 201 I.P.C. against the defendant, D. Siva Shankar Reddy (A-5), as well as Sections 201, 506 and 120-B read with 201 I.P.C. against the respondent.]According to Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the C.B.I. filed a criminal petition with the High Court asking for the respondent's bail to be revoked.

The High Court dismissed the aforementioned petition primarily on the grounds that bail could not be revoked on the basis of merits after respondent No. 1 was freed on default bail pursuant to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Whether the bail granted under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. for failing to wrap up the investigation within the time frame specified therein can be revoked after the presentation of a chargesheet, and if the answer to the question is yes, then what grounds and circumstances can the bail be revoked?

After citing a few cases, the Supreme Court stated that the issuance of a chargesheet after a person has been released on default bail pursuant to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used as justification for revoking that person's release. On the other hand, over and above other grounds on which the bail to a person who is released on bail can be cancelled on merits, upon filing of the chargesheet at the conclusion of the investigation, if a strong case is made out and on merits, it is found that he has committed a non-bailable offence/crime, taking into consideration Section 437(5) and Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

The bench further opined that there is no absolute bar as stated and held by the High Court in the impugned judgement and order, which stated that once a person is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., his bail cannot be cancelled on merits and that it can be cancelled on other general grounds such as tampering with the evidence or witnesses; not cooperating with the investigating agency; and/or not cooperating with the concerned Trial Court, among others.

The Supreme Court stated that even if the accused committed a very serious offence, such as an NDPS violation or even a murder, he still managed to work with a convenient investigating officer, fail to submit the chargesheet within the allotted time period specified in Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and obtain release on default bail, which could result in a premium being placed on illegality and/or dishonesty. Such release of the accused on default bail is based entirely on the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167's proviso and not at all on the merits.

T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy vs The State Through The Central Bureau of Investigation

Latest Legal News