Board Consultation Mandatory Before Withholding Pension Of Retired Employee Under General Insurance Pension Scheme: Delhi High Court Simultaneous Pursuit Of Two Qualifications Not A Ground For Termination In Absence Of Statutory Bar: Allahabad High Court Trade Marks Act Makes No Distinction Between House Marks And Trade Marks: Bombay High Court Limitation For Recovery Of Earnest Money Reckoned From Date Of Contract Repudiation, Not Execution Of Agreement: Delhi High Court State Electricity Commissions Must Treat Ministry’s RPO Capping Directives As Material Factors; Cannot Ignore Guidance: Andhra Pradesh High Court Direction To Deposit Rents Cannot Be Sought In Title Suit If Not Prayed For In Main Relief, Especially After 5-Year Delay: Andhra Pradesh High Court Charity Commissioner Has Power To Appoint Interim Committee & Stay Elections If Management Functions Beyond Tenure: Bombay High Court Rape Case Quashed As Complainant Voluntarily Accompanied Accused To Hotel & Refused Medical Exam: Calcutta High Court Plaintiffs Cannot Create Illusory Cause Of Action Through Clever Drafting To Save Time-Barred Suits: Karnataka High Court Surcharge Proceedings Under AP Cooperative Societies Act Not Applicable To District Bank Employees For Lapses In Primary Societies: Andhra Pradesh High Court No Compensation If Land Acquisition Proceedings Are Abandoned & Property Excluded From Final Notification: Karnataka High Court Law Is Above You, No Matter How High: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Illegal Tourism Hub In Visakhapatnam CRZ NDPS Act | Karnataka High Court Grants Bail On Ground Of Parity To Accused Found With Lesser Quantity Than Co-Accused Section 138 NI Act Offence Can Be Compounded Even After Conviction; High Court Has Discretion To Waive Costs In Exceptional Cases: Punjab & Haryana HC NEET (UG) 2026: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Reopen Payment Portal For Candidate Who Waited Till Last Date To Pay Fees Importers Can't Escape Penalties For Using False Documents Merely By Opting For Re-Export: Madras High Court Long Incarceration No Ground For Bail In Crimes That Shock Collective Conscience: Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses Bail To Shubam Sangra In Kathua Case

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