Supreme Court Holds Filing of Chargesheet as Sufficient Compliance for Seeking Default Bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC.

In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the filing of a chargesheet by the investigating agency is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for seeking default bail. The court held that an accused cannot claim an indefeasible right of being released on statutory/default bail merely on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of the statutory time period to file the chargesheet.

The case involved an appeal challenging the High Court's order rejecting the application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The appellants argued that since the chargesheet was filed in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) instead of the Special Court designated under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, their further detention was unlawful, and they were entitled to default bail.

1. Filing of Chargesheet and Statutory Right: The court observed that the indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail arises only if the chargesheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. The non-filing of the chargesheet within the prescribed period is the ground for availing the right to claim bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
2. Exclusion of Date of Remand: The court also addressed the issue of whether the date of remand should be included in the computation of the period prescribed under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It held that there is no requirement to include the date of remand, and the reference to a larger bench was unnecessary.
3. Error in Filing Chargesheet: The court acknowledged the error on the part of the investigating agency in filing the chargesheet in the court of the SDJM instead of the Special Court designated under the NIA Act. However, it held that this error did not affect the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
4. Committal Proceedings and Special Court: The court clarified that committal proceedings were not warranted in cases of prosecution under the NIA Act by the NIA itself, as the Special Court acts as the court of original jurisdiction. Once the investigation is completed, the report under Section 173 of the CrPC is to be filed in the Special Court constituted under the NIA Act.
5. Eye-Opener for Investigating Agencies: The court highlighted the need for investigating agencies to exercise caution when seeking an extension of time to complete investigations. It emphasized that applications for extension should not be filed at the last moment, as it may result in the accused's right to default bail if the application is not promptly decided.

The Supreme Court's judgement clarifies that the filing of a chargesheet is sufficient compliance for seeking default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the error in filing the chargesheet in the wrong court does not affect the right of the accused to seek bail. This judgement serves as an eye-opener for investigating agencies to ensure timely and proper compliance with the procedural requirements to safeguard the rights of the accused.

JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH SAMRA @ JASBIR & ORS. VS ATIONAL INVESTIGATION