NEW DELHI: Holding that it is the fundamental right of an accused to get bail if the investigating agency failed to complete probe and file chargesheet within the stipulated time, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the trial court should not extend the remand of an accused and s/he should be granted default bail if an incomplete chargesheet is filed and investigation is not over within the period.
Underscoring the need to place certain checks and balances on investigation agencies to prevent harassment of accused persons, a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and C T Ravikumar said the right of an accused should not be allowed to be frustrated by any probe agency if it files an incomplete chargesheet without completing the probe to deny default bail.
As per Section 167(2) of the CrPC, a magistrate can authorise detention of an accused for 90 days in cases where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment or for a term of not less than 10 years and 60 days in other cases.
“Without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC. Such a chargesheet… would not extinguish the right to default bail,” the bench said.
It said the trial court, in such cases, cannot continue the remand of an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without offering default bail.
“…a supplementary chargesheet, wherein it is explicitly stated that the investigation is still pending, cannot under any circumstance be used to scuttle the right of default bail,” the bench said.
The court passed the order on a petition filed by the wife of an accused who was not granted default bail despite the probe not being completed by the CBI within the stipulated 60 days.
“It must be remembered that our Constitution has entrusted the SC with the most important task of protecting civil liberties of individuals, and the society at large. These civil liberties, which manifest themselves in the form of fundamental rights, are what allow the people of this country to effectively negotiate with the State and maintain the parity in power in the social contract between the people and the State. If this court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction on technicalities in cases of violations of fundamental rights, it will lead to a ripple effect that will result in a dysfunctional social contract, wherein the people of this country would become subject to an arbitrary and unfettered tyranny of the state,” the court said.
It said the process of remand and custody creates a huge disparity of power between the investigating authority and the accused. “While there is no doubt in our minds that arrest and remand are extremely crucial for smooth functioning of the investigation authority for the purpose of attaining justice, however, it is also extremely important to be cognisant of a power imbalance,” it said.
“It is also pertinent to note that the relief of statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, in our opinion, is a fundamental right directly flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution, and the violation of such a right, as mentioned above, directly attracts consideration under Article 32 of the Constitution,” the bench said while rejecting CBI’s plea.
Underscoring the need to place certain checks and balances on investigation agencies to prevent harassment of accused persons, a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and C T Ravikumar said the right of an accused should not be allowed to be frustrated by any probe agency if it files an incomplete chargesheet without completing the probe to deny default bail.
As per Section 167(2) of the CrPC, a magistrate can authorise detention of an accused for 90 days in cases where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment or for a term of not less than 10 years and 60 days in other cases.
“Without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC. Such a chargesheet… would not extinguish the right to default bail,” the bench said.
It said the trial court, in such cases, cannot continue the remand of an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without offering default bail.
“…a supplementary chargesheet, wherein it is explicitly stated that the investigation is still pending, cannot under any circumstance be used to scuttle the right of default bail,” the bench said.
The court passed the order on a petition filed by the wife of an accused who was not granted default bail despite the probe not being completed by the CBI within the stipulated 60 days.
“It must be remembered that our Constitution has entrusted the SC with the most important task of protecting civil liberties of individuals, and the society at large. These civil liberties, which manifest themselves in the form of fundamental rights, are what allow the people of this country to effectively negotiate with the State and maintain the parity in power in the social contract between the people and the State. If this court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction on technicalities in cases of violations of fundamental rights, it will lead to a ripple effect that will result in a dysfunctional social contract, wherein the people of this country would become subject to an arbitrary and unfettered tyranny of the state,” the court said.
It said the process of remand and custody creates a huge disparity of power between the investigating authority and the accused. “While there is no doubt in our minds that arrest and remand are extremely crucial for smooth functioning of the investigation authority for the purpose of attaining justice, however, it is also extremely important to be cognisant of a power imbalance,” it said.
“It is also pertinent to note that the relief of statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, in our opinion, is a fundamental right directly flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution, and the violation of such a right, as mentioned above, directly attracts consideration under Article 32 of the Constitution,” the bench said while rejecting CBI’s plea.
