Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

"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   

Similar News