Filing Incomplete Chargesheet Without Completing Investigation Would Not Extinguish The Right Of Accused To Get Default Bail: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, held that without completing an investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint can't be filed by an Investigating Agency only to deprive an accused of his right to default bail under Section 167 of CrPC.A Bench comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice CT Ravikumar held the same while considering a criminal writ petition filed by Ritu Chhabaria (of the Radius Group) seeking the release of her husband on default bail. Upon consideration of the petition, the Bench made the interim order, granting bail to the petitioner's husband/accused, absolute.Discussing the history of CrPC and the reason why amendments have been brought in for Section 167 CrPC for default bail, the Bench noted that if the Investigating Agency files a chargesheet without completing the investigation, the same would not extinguish the right of the accused to get default bail. It further observed that the Trial Court, in such cases, cannot continue to remand the arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without opting arrested person default bail.The case in briefAn FIR was lodged under Section 120(B) read with Section 420 of the IPC along with Sections 7,12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the writ petitioner’s husband was not named. Subsequently, supplementary chargesheets were filed, wherein the writ petitioner’s husband (accused) was made a prosecution witness in a supplementary chargesheet, however, in such chargesheets, the accused was not named.Thereafter, the investigation of the case was transferred to another investigating officer, and the accused was then arrested by CBI and remanded to custody on April 28, 2022. Multiple other supplementary chargesheets were then filed, wherein he was named as a suspect, and his remand under Section 309(2) of CrPC was renewed and continued from time to time, and he was never released on default bail.Against the backdrop of these facts, the wife of the accused moved the instant criminal writ plea before the Supreme Court against his continuation of custody, and the scuttling of relief of default bail contending that every Supplementary chargesheet filed in the case was an attempt to ensure that her husband is not released on default bail. Hearing the plea, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail on March 20 this year. Arguments advancedBefore the SC, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the Fundamental rights of the accused were being prejudiced due to continued custody on the grounds of the investigation not being completed. It was contended that he was kept in jail beyond the period of 60 days, even though the provisions of the CrPC do not empower continued remand to custody beyond 60 days if the investigation is still in progress.On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent argued that the writ was not maintainable as for grant of bail, the accused should have either approached the High Court against the order of the Magistrate refusing default bail or filed a Special Leave Petition against the said order invoking provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution of India.It was also argued that the supplementary chargesheet filed on June 25, 2022, is a complete document in respect to the offence committed by the persons arraigned in the said supplementary chargesheet (including the accused), therefore no right to default bail has been accrued in his favour.Supreme Court's observationsAt the outset, the Court rejected the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ plea in the facts of the case as it observed that relief of statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a fundamental right directly flowing from Article 21, and the violation of such a right directly attracts consideration under Article 32."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.Further, in light of the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties, the Court formed the following three issues for its consideration:- I. Can a chargesheet or a prosecution complaint be filed in piecemeal without first completing the investigation of the case? II. Whether the filing of such a chargesheet without completing the investigation will extinguish the right of an accused for grant of default bail? III. Whether the remand of an accused can be continued by the trial court during the pendency of investigation beyond the stipulated time as prescribed by the CrPC?To examine the questions framed, the Court perused Section 167(2) of the CrPC to note that the provision was enacted to ensure that the investigating agency completes the investigation within the prescribed time limit (60 days or 90 days as the case may...

Filing Incomplete Chargesheet Without Completing Investigation Would Not Extinguish The Right Of Accused To Get Default Bail: Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

Filing Incomplete Chargesheet Without Completing Investigation Would Not Extinguish The Right Of Accused To Get Default Bail: Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers