Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Right to Default Bail Extinguished Upon Filing of Challan: Punjab and Haryana High Court

20 January 2025 8:25 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Sandeep Moudgil, rendered its decision , dismissed the petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, wherein the petitioner sought default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC due to the non-filing of the charge sheet within the statutory period. The court upheld that the filing of the challan (charge sheet) extinguished the petitioner’s right to default bail.

The petitioner, Prince Singh @ Doddi, was arrested on April 15, 2024, in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Sections 307, 324, 326, 379-B, 411, 148, 149 IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the SC & ST Act. The prosecution failed to file the challan within 60 days, leading the petitioner to file an application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on July 11, 2024. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the applicable period for filing the charge sheet was 90 days under Part-II of Section 307 IPC, as the offence carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The challan was subsequently filed on July 12, 2024, one day after the application for default bail. A supplementary challan filed on July 18, 2024, excluded charges under Section 307 IPC, but this did not impact the court's analysis of the petitioner's right to default bail as of the date of the original application.

The petitioner argued that he was entitled to default bail as the applicable statutory period was 60 days, given that the injuries alleged were not "dangerous to life" and thus fell under Part-I of Section 307 IPC. However, the trial court determined, and Justice Moudgil affirmed, that the case involved Part-II of Section 307 IPC, which prescribes life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, warranting a 90-day period for the filing of the challan [Paras 2-3].

The court highlighted that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an "indefeasible right" but can only be enforced prior to the filing of the challan. Once the charge sheet is submitted, this right ceases to exist, as custody is then governed by other provisions of the CrPC. Justice Moudgil noted, "The moment challan/supplementary challan is filed, Section 167(2) CrPC ceases its applicability on the petitioner to seek default bail" [Para 8].

The court referred to the landmark judgment in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410, which held: "The indefeasible right accruing to the accused in such a situation is enforceable only prior to the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not availed of" [Para 9].

The petitioner argued that since the supplementary challan filed on July 18, 2024, excluded Section 307 IPC, the statutory period should be 60 days. The court rejected this argument, stating that the applicability of Section 167(2) CrPC must be assessed based on the charges existing at the time of filing the application for default bail, not on subsequent developments [Para 7].

Enforcement of Right: The right to default bail must be enforced before the filing of the challan; it does not survive beyond this point.
Assessment Date: The relevant date for determining entitlement to default bail is when the accused applies for it, not when subsequent charge modifications occur.
Custody Post-Challan: Once the challan is filed, custody is governed by provisions other than Section 167(2) CrPC, shifting the basis for bail considerations to the merits of the case [Paras 10-11].
The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court's finding that the petitioner was not entitled to default bail due to the filing of the challan on July 12, 2024. Justice Moudgil concluded, "The right of default bail ceases to exist the moment challan/report is filed within the prescribed period of sixty or ninety days" [Para 11].
The petition for default bail was dismissed, reinforcing the established principle that the right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is extinguished upon the filing of the charge sheet.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2024
 

Latest Legal News