Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"Punjab and Haryana High Court Clarifies Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.: Default Bail Not to Be Canceled Merely on Filing Charge-Sheet"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), affirming that default bail cannot be canceled solely upon the filing of a charge-sheet. The decision, delivered by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA on September 12, 2023, sheds light on the rights of individuals seeking default bail when the prosecution fails to file a charge-sheet within the stipulated time frame.

The case in question involved petitioner Bharat Kumar, who had applied for default bail after spending 196 days in judicial custody due to the non-filing of a charge-sheet. The petitioner was charged with the possession of MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine) under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the core issue by emphasizing that "mere filing of the charge-sheet subsequent to a person being released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be a ground to cancel the bail." This ruling reaffirms the crucial principle that the right to default bail arises when the investigating agency fails to file the charge-sheet within the prescribed period.

The judgment further highlighted that default bail can only be canceled on merits if a strong case is established for a non-bailable offense and special reasons are shown, taking into account the grounds specified in Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. In this context, the Court stated, "Courts are not precluded from considering the application for cancellation of bail on merits."

The ruling serves as a safeguard for personal liberty, as Article 21 of the Constitution of India stipulates that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the law and ensuring that individuals are not detained beyond the legally prescribed limits.

The judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications in cases involving default bail, providing clarity on when and under what circumstances bail can be canceled. It reaffirms the need for an expeditious investigation and emphasizes that filing the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report and challan alone cannot be considered sufficient grounds for canceling default bail.

Legal experts have welcomed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling, noting that it strikes a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring that individuals accused of serious offenses are subject to due process. Advocates Ms. Himani Anand and Mr. Rakesh Nehra represented the petitioner, while Mr. Vipul Sherwal served as the Additional Advocate General for Haryana during the proceedings.

Date of Decision: 12.09.2023

Bharat Kumar vs State of Haryana   

Latest Legal News