Listen to this articleBikramjit Singh v. The
State of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 667
of 2020 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2922 of 2020
Decided on 12.10.2020
Bench: R.F.
Nariman, Navin Sinha, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Facts:
The
appellant-accused was remanded to custody by the Sub-divisional magistrate. He
filed an application for default bail before the Sub-divisional magistrate
after the expiry of 90 days in custody. His
bail application was dismissed by the Sub-divisional magistrate on the ground
that the time of custody has been increased from 90 days to 180 days under
Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) as amended by Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA). This order was set aside by the Special
Court which observed that the Special Court alone has the jurisdiction to
extend the time for custody to 180 days under the first proviso of Section
43-D(2)(b) of UAPA. The plea for default bail was refused by special court as
well.
The
above order of the Special Court was later set aside by the Punjab &
Haryana High Court. The court held that when the probe is being conducted by
the State Police then the Magistrate has power to extend the period of
investigation upto 180 days under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 43(a)
of UAPA. High Court also observed that when the investigation is being
conducted by an agency under the NIA Act then this power of extending the time
to 180 days would be exercised by the Special Court. No relief with regard to
default bail was given in the High Court as well. Then the appeal was made to
the Supreme Court challenging the ruling of High Court.
The
contention of the appellant-accused was that his right to default bail is not
extinguished by filing of the charge sheet.
Issue: Is the right to default
bail extinguished by filing of the charge sheet?
Held: Supreme
Court allowed the appeal and while granting default bail it observed that the
accused gets an indefeasible right to ‘default bail’ if he makes an application
for default bail after the maximum period of investigation of an offence is
over and before the charge sheet is filed. It was held that “So long as an
application has been made for default bail on expiry of the stated period
before time is further extended to the maximum period of 180 days, default
bail, being an indefeasible right of the accused under the first proviso o
Section 167(2) kicks in and must be granted.”
The
court held that the right to default bail is not merely a statutory right under
the first proviso of Section 167(2) CrPC, but it is a part of the procedure
established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is a fundamental
right granted to an accused person to be released on bail once the conditions
of Section 167(2) are fulfilled.
The
Court also held that the Special Court alone has the jurisdiction to extend
time upto 180 days under the first proviso of Section 43-D (2) (b) of UAPA. And
all offences under the UAPA are to be tried exclusively by the Special Court
set up under the NIA Act whether investigated by the NIA of the state police.
[Right to default bail: CrPC provides through Section 167(2) that the
detention of the accused person cannot be authorised beyond a statutory period
prescribed to complete the investigation. Ordinarily the statutory period to
complete investigation and filing of charge sheet is maximum of 90 days in
offences punishable by life imprisonment or death. But for the offences under
UAPA this period of 90 days is extendable upto 180 days.]