Section 167 CrPC | '15 Days' Time Limit & Reasoned Order' For Remand Are Requirements Only During Pendency Of Investigation: Delhi High Court

Observing that the right of default bail is finished or extinguished the moment chargesheet is filed within the period prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Delhi High Court has ruled that any irregularity or illegality in the remand order is not a "statutorily sanctioned reason" for grant of default bail. 

"A reading of the provisions under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. nowhere carves out the principle to indicate that the accused would be entitled for bail for any reason whatsoever apart from any other reason then stipulated under the proviso (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C," said the court.

The court said the language of sub-Section 3 of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is unambiguous and, therefore, has to be understood in the natural and ordinary sense.

"The same would indicate that if the accused is remanded in police custody, the reasoned order is sine qua non. The logic behind not permitting the Magistrate to remand an accused beyond 15 days unless the complaint/charge sheet is filed is also based on the fundamental constitutional principles of the right to liberty. Once a charge sheet/complaint is filed the further course envisaged under the Cr.P.C. will have to take place and the mode available for the accused for bail is only on merits. Any other interpretation of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. would lead to the creation of another mode for grant of bail which is not envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the same is not acceptable. The 15 days' time limit and reasoned order are the requirement to be followed under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. only during pendency of investigation." 

The court also said Section 167 of Cr.P.C. does not indicate a requirement of passing reasoned order or to confine the remand only upto maximum 15 days in one go, once the chargesheet has been filed by the investigating agency.  

"Post filing of complaint/chargesheet as the case may be, endorsement on production warrant by the competent court is sufficient compliance of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., of course the accused, if at all he has any grievance with respect to any illegality or irregularity with respect to the passing of the order of remand post filing of the complaint/chargesheet or if he feels that any of his legal right are infringed, he can certainly raise his grievance in accordance with law but the same would not entitle him for his release on bail under Section 167 of Cr.P.C," it added.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav also observed that law cannot afford to be static and that judges have to apply an "intelligent technique" in using the precedents.

"The court is bound by the ratio decidendi of a decision and not mere observations. There is no precedent on facts. It is the legal proposition flowing from the judgment which has binding effect," said the court.

Further, the bench also observed that courts primarily interpret statutes and do not interpret judgments, adding that every case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another may not be enough.

"Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions to be reached in two cases. Observations of the courts are neither to be read as Euclid's Theorems nor as provisions of the statute, and are never to be taken out of context," the court said.

It added: "It is because even a single significant detail may alter the entire factual matrix, in deciding such cases. One should avoid the temptation to decide cases by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not decisive."

The court made the observations while dismissing the bail pleas filed by two men in a case being probed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office into the affairs of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. and its then group companies.

While one of the applicants was the head of the Accounts Department of BPSL, the other was a former President of accounts department. It was alleged that the applicants were involved in the alleged fraud resulting in misappropriation of the public money to the tune of Rs.5,435 crores.

The accused were arrested on March 21 and the investigation report or complaint was filed on May 19, within a period of 60 days. The SFIO was granted two days' custody remand on March 21. After the investigating agency's custody, they were remanded to judicial custody till April 7. While the judicial custody was extended from time to time, it was extended up to May 31 on May 18.

It was the case of the applicants that on May 31, they were produced through video conferencing and their remand was extended upto August 17 without any speaking order. It was thus argued that there was no judicial order for remand but a mere endorsement on the warrant which does not fulfil the legal requirement of a valid remand order.

It was also argued that filing of the chargesheet or a complaint would not absolve a Magistrate from the rigours of section 167 of CrPC which provide strict compliance of two conditions i.e. no remand order should exceed more than 15 days and that each order has to be reasoned.

On the other hand, it was the prosecution's case that most of the witnesses and individuals associated with the investigation of BPSL were working under the applicants and thus, there was every likelihood that witnesses may be influenced and investigation may be hampered.

It was submitted that since the detention of the applicants was not in the custody of police but was in judicial custody, there was no requirement for the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order under section 167 of the Code.

The question before the court was that whether a speaking order was required to be passed on May 31 and that the remand period beyond 15 days can be accepted to be legal?

Relying on various judicial precedents, the court noted that the complaint was filed within a period of 60 days and that the special judge extended the judicial remand of applicants on August 6 after directing for their production on production warrant.

"The complaint in this case is filed on 19.05.2022 i.e., before 31.05.2022. It is thus seen that on 31.05.2022 when the production was directed beyond 15 days the complaint was already filed. A reading of the provisions under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. nowhere carves out the principle to indicate that the accused would be entitled for bail for any reason whatsoever apart from any other reason then stipulated under the proviso (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C.," the court said.

Furthermore, it was observed that the applicants may be entitled for any other legal remedy like moving a plea under Article 226 or section 482 of Cr.P.C., however, they cannot claim bail under section 167 of the Code.

"It is thus concluded that the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail on account of breach of 15 days' time limit, post filing of complaint or on account of not passing a reasoned order," the court said.

Dismissing the bail pleas, the court said, "It is thus seen that at this stage, it cannot be said that the constitutional right of the applicants for speedy trial is infringed and on the contrary this court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are not guilty of the offences alleged against them."

Title: AMARJEET SHARMA v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

Click Here To Read Order