Supreme Court Upholds Right to Prompt Bail Application Review

Union of India through C.B.I. Versus Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav

Union of India through C.B.I. Versus Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav - 2014 AIR 3036, 2014 (6) SCR 148, 2014 (9) SCC 457, 2014 (8) JT 610, ... Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.
2. Interpretation of "indefeasible right" to bail.
3. Procedural requirements for extension of investigation period.
4. Impact of filing charge-sheet after the statutory period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC:
The respondent was arrested for serious offenses and was in judicial custody. The statutory period of 90 days for filing the charge-sheet expired without the charge-sheet being filed. The respondent filed for bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, which mandates bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the stipulated period. The CBI sought an extension, but no order was passed on the extension application before the statutory period expired. The charge-sheet was eventually filed after the 90-day period.

2. Interpretation of "Indefeasible Right" to Bail:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the "indefeasible right" to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrues to the accused if the charge-sheet is not filed within the statutory period. This right is enforceable from the time of default until the charge-sheet is filed. The Court emphasized that this right does not survive once the charge-sheet is filed if the accused has not availed of it. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Sanjay Dutt v. State, which clarified that this right is extinguished upon the filing of the charge-sheet.

3. Procedural Requirements for Extension of Investigation Period:
The prosecution must file an application for an extension of the investigation period before the expiry of the statutory period. The Court must then consider this application promptly. In this case, the application for extension was filed after the respondent had already applied for bail due to the lapse of the statutory period. The Court held that the Magistrate should have disposed of the bail application promptly, and the delay in considering the extension application was a violation of the legislative mandate.

4. Impact of Filing Charge-sheet After the Statutory Period:
The Supreme Court held that the right to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is not defeated by the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet if the accused has already applied for bail due to the default. The Court criticized the lower court for adjourning the bail application, which allowed the prosecution to file the charge-sheet and thereby attempt to extinguish the respondent's right to bail. The Court emphasized that such delays and adjournments by the court are impermissible and frustrate the legislative intent behind Section 167(2) CrPC.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the right to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrues upon the expiry of the statutory period without the filing of the charge-sheet and must be enforced promptly. Any delay or adjournment that allows the prosecution to file the charge-sheet and thereby extinguish this right is contrary to the legislative mandate.