Default bail is not cancelled merely by a later charge-sheet; independent grounds are required for custody to be restored.

Default bail granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC is not automatically lost when a charge-sheet is later filed. Because such release is treated as bail under Chapter XXXIII, cancellation must be sought under the recognised cancellation powers and supported by independent grounds such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, interference with trial or investigation, or other strong reasons showing custody is necessary. The later filing of the charge-sheet alone is insufficient. A dissenting view stated that the court could reconsider cancellation on the basis of the challan material if it showed reasonable grounds and the need for custody.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for failure to complete investigation within the prescribed period can be taken back into custody merely because a charge-sheet is later filed.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 167(2) creates a statutory right to release on bail when investigation is not completed within the prescribed outer limit. That release is deemed to be a release under Chapter XXXIII, so the power to cancel such bail must be traced to Section 437(5) or Section 439(2). The mere filing of a charge-sheet does not, by itself, justify cancellation. Cancellation requires independent grounds germane to bail cancellation, such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, interference with the investigation or trial, threatening witnesses, evasion of justice, or other strong reasons showing that custody has become necessary. The earlier rejection of bail on merits does not control the cancellation question once default bail has been granted.

Conclusion: The accused cannot be remanded to custody merely on the filing of the charge-sheet; cancellation requires special and sufficient grounds beyond the fact of later filing.

Dissenting Opinion: Punchhi, J. held that an order of default bail under Section 167(2) is not a bail order on merits, but on filing of the charge-sheet the court may reconsider the matter and cancel bail if the material in the challan shows reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence and custody is necessary.

Ratio Decidendi: Default bail granted under Section 167(2) is not automatically extinguished by a subsequent charge-sheet, and cancellation is permissible only on recognised grounds for cancellation of bail, not by the charge-sheet alone.

---