Default bail under Section 167(2): ten-year threshold means minimum punishment, and an oral plea can validly invoke the right.

The phrase "imprisonment for a term not less than ten years" in Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to offences carrying a minimum sentence of ten years or more, not merely where the maximum sentence may extend to ten years; on that construction, such offences remain in the 60-day category for default bail. The Court also held that the statutory right to default bail accrues once the prescribed period expires without a charge sheet and may be effectively invoked by an oral plea made while the right subsists, without being defeated by later filing of the charge sheet or by technical objections. The accused was therefore entitled to release on default bail terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "imprisonment for a term not less than ten years" in Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only where the minimum prescribed sentence is ten years or more, or also where the maximum sentence is ten years. (ii) Whether the accused could claim default bail on the basis of an oral plea raised in a pending regular bail application before the expiry of the statutory period and before filing of the charge sheet.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "imprisonment for a term not less than ten years" in Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only where the minimum prescribed sentence is ten years or more, or also where the maximum sentence is ten years.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 167 places offences into two compartments for the purpose of default bail. Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years fall in the extended 90-day category, while all other offences fall in the 60-day category. The majority held that the words "not less than ten years" bear their natural meaning and refer to offences carrying a minimum sentence of ten years or more, not merely offences where the maximum sentence may extend to ten years. That interpretation was preferred as being consistent with the structure of the provision and the principle that restrictions on personal liberty must be construed strictly in favour of liberty. The dissent took the view that offences punishable with imprisonment up to ten years also fall within the 90-day category.

Conclusion: The phrase applies only where the offence is punishable with a minimum sentence of ten years or more. The accused was, therefore, within the 60-day category.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused could claim default bail on the basis of an oral plea raised in a pending regular bail application before the expiry of the statutory period and before filing of the charge sheet.

Analysis: The majority held that the right to default bail accrues on expiry of the statutory period if the charge sheet has not been filed and the accused is prepared to furnish bail. The court hearing the matter must not defeat that right by technicalities, and an oral invocation of the statutory entitlement, if raised before the court while the right subsists, is sufficient to require consideration of default bail. The majority treated the right as an indefeasible one rooted in the protection of personal liberty under Article 21. The dissent held that a specific application invoking Section 167(2) before the competent court is a prerequisite and that a regular bail application without such a plea is insufficient.

Conclusion: The accused had availed of the statutory right to default bail before filing of the charge sheet and was entitled to release on that basis.

Concurring Opinion: Deepak Gupta, J. concurred with the majority that the expression "not less than ten years" refers only to offences carrying a minimum sentence of ten years or more, and that the accused had effectively invoked and availed of the default-bail right before the charge sheet was filed. He also concurred that the right could not be defeated by later filing of the charge sheet.

Dissenting Opinion: Prafulla C. Pant, J. held that offences punishable with imprisonment up to ten years also fall within Section 167(2)(a)(i), that a specific application under Section 167(2) before the competent court is required, and that the accused was not entitled to default bail on the facts.

Final Conclusion: The majority enforced the accused's statutory right to default bail, set aside the High Court's order, and held that the accused should be released on reasonable bail terms.

Ratio Decidendi: For default bail under Section 167(2), offences falling in the 90-day category are those punishable with death, life imprisonment, or a minimum sentence of ten years or more, and the statutory right, once accrued and invoked before filing of the charge sheet, cannot be defeated by later procedural technicalities.

---