Supreme Court Refers Default Bail Calculation Issue for Uniform Resolution

The Supreme Court addressed the calculation of the period for default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of CrPC in an appeal against the Bombay High Court's decision. The Court noted a divergence of opinion on including or excluding the day of remand in computing the bail entitlement period. Due to conflicting views, the Court referred the issue to a larger bench for resolution to ensure uniform application of the law. Pending the authoritative pronouncement, the Court decided to consider the respondents' interim prayer for the benefit of the High Court's bail order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Calculation of period for default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of CrPC.
2. Divergence of opinion on including or excluding the day of remand in computing the period for default bail entitlement.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of computing the period for default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of CrPC in an appeal against the Bombay High Court's order granting default bail to the respondents. The High Court held that excluding the first date of remand while computing the 60-day period was erroneous, entitling the respondents to default bail based on the filing of the Charge Sheet by the Enforcement Directorate on the 61st day. The core question was whether the day of remand should be included or excluded in calculating the period for default bail.

2. The Court noted a divergence of opinion on this issue in various judgments. The appellants relied on precedents favoring the exclusion of the date of remand, such as State of M.P. Vs. Rustom & Ors. and Ravi Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar, while the respondents cited cases like Chaganti Satyanarayan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and State Vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat to argue for including the date of remand in the computation of the investigation period for default bail entitlement.

3. Due to conflicting views on the grant of default bail, the Court recognized the need to resolve this judicial conundrum for the guidance of the judiciary. The Court highlighted the importance of determining the legislative intent for expeditious investigation completion and the consequences of prosecution failure to conclude the investigation within the stipulated period.

4. Considering the conflicting precedents and the necessity for a uniform application of the law, the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. The Court directed the Registry to present all relevant documents before the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of at least three judges to settle the conflicting views on the grant of default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of CrPC.

5. Pending the authoritative pronouncement, the Court decided to place the matter before a bench of three judges for consideration of the respondents' interim prayer for the benefit of the High Court's bail order, which was stayed earlier. This step aimed to address the respondents' plea while awaiting the resolution of the conflict in law regarding default bail entitlement.

---