Default bail cannot be diluted by deposit or daily reporting conditions that defeat the statutory right to release.

Default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be burdened with conditions that undermine its statutory purpose. A deposit-of-money condition was impermissible because it effectively converted an indefeasible right into a conditional, deposit-based release, and was set aside. A daily reporting requirement at the police station was also held too harsh for default bail; it was modified to a duty to cooperate with the investigating agency and appear when called for, with cancellation available on breach.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a condition requiring deposit of money could be imposed. (ii) Whether a condition requiring daily appearance at the police station for interrogation could be imposed while granting default bail.

Issue (i): Whether, while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a condition requiring deposit of money could be imposed.

Analysis: Default bail arises from the failure of the investigating agency to complete investigation and file the charge-sheet within the statutory period, and once the accused applies for such bail and is ready to furnish bail, an indefeasible right accrues. Conditions linked to the alleged amount involved in the offence are relevant to regular bail, but they cannot be used to burden the statutory right to default bail. Imposing a monetary deposit condition would defeat the object of Section 167(2).

Conclusion: The condition directing deposit of money while granting default bail was impermissible and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether a condition requiring daily appearance at the police station for interrogation could be imposed while granting default bail.

Analysis: A condition of daily reporting was found to be unduly harsh in the context of default bail. The proper course is to require cooperation with the investigating agency and attendance when called for, with cancellation consequences available upon breach. The condition as imposed went beyond what was necessary for investigation.

Conclusion: The daily reporting condition was modified and replaced with a condition to cooperate with the investigating agency and appear when called for.

Final Conclusion: The statutory right to default bail cannot be diluted by conditions that effectively neutralize its purpose, though reasonable investigative conditions may still be imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: While granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court cannot impose conditions that undermine the indefeasible statutory right or convert it into a conditional deposit-based release.

---