Supreme Court grants bail appeal under Section 167(2) of the Code, setting conditions for release.

ACHPAL @ RAMSWAROOP & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

ACHPAL @ RAMSWAROOP & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2018 AIR 4647, 2018 (12) SCR 327, 2019 (14) SCC 599, 2018 (9) JT 315, 2018 (13) SCALE 5 Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the High Court's judgment and order dated 23.07.2018.
2. Compliance with the order for fair and impartial investigation.
3. Entitlement to bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Interpretation of the High Court's order as an extension of the investigation period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Correctness of the High Court's Judgment and Order Dated 23.07.2018:
The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment which rejected the petition for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court had determined that the time for filing the charge-sheet was extended by its order dated 03.07.2018, and since the charge-sheet was produced before the 90-day period but returned for non-compliance with the order, no case for bail was made out.

2. Compliance with the Order for Fair and Impartial Investigation:
An order dated 03.07.2018 by the High Court required the investigation to be conducted by a Gazetted Police Officer, not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police, and the report to be submitted within two months. The charge-sheet filed on 05.07.2018 was by a lower-ranking officer, thus not complying with the High Court's order. Consequently, the Magistrate returned the charge-sheet for due compliance.

3. Entitlement to Bail Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The appellants were in custody since 08.04.2018, and the investigation was to be completed by 07.07.2018. The charge-sheet filed on 05.07.2018 was returned due to non-compliance with the High Court's order. As of the 90th day (07.07.2018), no valid charge-sheet was on record. The appellants filed for bail under Section 167(2), which grants an indefeasible right to bail if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated period. The Supreme Court cited Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that upon the expiry of the prescribed period, the accused is entitled to be released on bail if they are prepared to and furnish bail.

4. Interpretation of the High Court's Order as an Extension of the Investigation Period:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's order could be construed as extending the investigation period. It concluded that the Code does not permit any extension of the investigation period. The High Court's order merely recorded the submission of the Public Prosecutor without explicitly extending the period. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the High Court's order extended the investigation period, noting that the provisions of the Code do not empower any court to extend the investigation period.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants were entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the Code, as no valid charge-sheet was on record by the 90th day. The Court directed that the appellants be admitted to bail on conditions deemed appropriate by the trial court. It also noted that this does not prevent the arrest or re-arrest of the appellants on cogent grounds, and they would be entitled to petition for regular bail in such an event. The appeal was thus allowed.