Supreme Court affirms legality of remand orders, denies Default Bail

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the legality of the judicial orders of remand. It was concluded that the charge sheet filed on 3.7.2013 complied with statutory requirements, and the Appellant was not entitled to Default Bail. The interpretation of the term "police report" under Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also confirmed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Default Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Compliance with statutory requirements of police report under Sections 173(2) and 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Validity of judicial orders of remand and custody.
4. Interpretation of the term "police report" under Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Right to seek default bail upon non-filing of complete documents with the charge sheet.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Default Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The appeal was filed against the High Court's rejection of Default Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Appellant argued that the period of 90 days for filing the police report had expired, making him eligible for Default Bail. The High Court was found to have excluded the day of arrest in its calculation, which the Appellant contended was erroneous.

2. Compliance with statutory requirements of police report under Sections 173(2) and 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Appellant claimed that the charge sheet filed by the CBI on 3.7.2013 did not comply with the statutory requirements of Sections 173(2) and 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was argued that the documents required to be filed along with the police report were submitted in installments and completed only on 8.7.2013, thus entitling the Appellant to bail.

3. Validity of judicial orders of remand and custody:
The Appellant contended that there was no existing order of remand to custody between 5.7.2013 and 8.7.2013, making his custody during that period illegal. Furthermore, it was argued that no judicial order of remand was made on 3.7.2013, rendering the custody illegal for the days between 3.7.2013 and 8.7.2013.

4. Interpretation of the term "police report" under Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court examined whether the charge sheet filed on 3.7.2013 complied with the definition of "police report" under Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was concluded that the charge sheet contained the necessary particulars required under Section 173(2), and thus, the filing of the police report was within the stipulated 90 days.

5. Right to seek default bail upon non-filing of complete documents with the charge sheet:
The Supreme Court referred to the three Judge Bench judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai, which held that the word "shall" in Section 173(5) is directory, not mandatory. This allowed for the submission of additional documents with the court's permission even after the initial charge sheet filing. Consequently, the High Court was justified in refusing Default Bail as the police report was filed within the 90-day period, and the Appellant's contention was rejected.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the charge sheet filed on 3.7.2013 complied with the statutory requirements, and the Appellant was not entitled to Default Bail. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the legality of the judicial orders of remand and the interpretation of the term "police report" under Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---