P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Saravanan vs. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police - (Supreme Court) (15 Oct 2020)

While granting default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, condition of deposit of amount cannot be imposed

MANU/SC/0764/2020

Criminal

The original accused has preferred the present appeals, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, by which the High Court has released the Appellant on default bail/statutory bail, on condition to deposit Rs. 8,00,000.

The Appellant has submitted that, condition imposed by the High Court imposed while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( CrPC) is contrary to the scheme of Section 167 of the CrPC. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether while releasing the Appellant-¬accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC, any condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court, could have been imposed.

The High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that, the Appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000¬ while releasing the Appellant on default bail/statutory bail. As observed by present Court in catena of decisions and more particularly in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default bail, and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused applies for default bail and furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC.

As observed by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam and in other decisions, the accused is entitled to default bail/statutory bail, subject to the eventuality occurring in Section 167 of CrPC, namely, investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. The circumstances while considering the regular bail application under Section 437 of CrPC are different, while considering the application for default bail/statutory bail. Under the circumstances, the condition imposed by the High Court to deposit Rs.8,00,000, while releasing the Appellant on default bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. So far as condition imposed by the High Court, namely, directing the appellant to report before the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned, the same is also unsustainable, as it is too harsh. The appeals are allowed.

Tags : BAIL   DEPOSIT   CONDITION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved