Court grants default bail due to delay in charge-sheet filing, emphasizing right to bail and procedural compliance.

Avva Venkata Rama Rao and Ors. Versus State of A.P.

Avva Venkata Rama Rao and Ors. Versus State of A.P. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to default bail under Section 167 of Cr.P.C.
2. Indefeasible right to bail due to non-filing of charge-sheet within the statutory period.
3. Conditions for granting default bail.
4. Judicial precedents and guidelines on default bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Default Bail Under Section 167 of Cr.P.C.:
The petitioners, accused in a criminal case, sought default bail under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. due to the non-filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period. They contended that they had an "indefeasible right" to bail, which was not properly considered by the Special Judge-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, leading to the dismissal of their applications. The petitioners argued that the law on default bail is settled and that their right to bail should be recognized without delving into the merits of the case.

2. Indefeasible Right to Bail Due to Non-Filing of Charge-Sheet Within Statutory Period:
The court examined the legal framework and judicial precedents on default bail. It referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in *Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I. Bombay (1994) 5 SCC 410*, which clarified that if the charge-sheet is not filed within 90 days (or 60 days for lesser offenses), the accused is entitled to default bail. This right is "indefeasible" and must be granted promptly upon application by the accused. The court also cited *Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453*, which laid down specific guidelines for granting default bail, emphasizing the need for prompt action by the Magistrate/Court to prevent the prosecution from frustrating the legislative mandate.

3. Conditions for Granting Default Bail:
The court reiterated that once the statutory period for filing the charge-sheet lapses, the accused must be released on bail if they apply for it. The court emphasized that even an oral application is sufficient to trigger this right. The court also discussed the procedure for canceling default bail if a charge-sheet is subsequently filed, highlighting that such cancellation must follow the provisions of Section 439(2) and 437(4) Cr.P.C.

4. Judicial Precedents and Guidelines on Default Bail:
The judgment extensively reviewed various Supreme Court decisions, including *Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC 722*, *Union of India v. Nirala Yadav (2014) 9 SCC 457*, and *Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam 2017 (3) ALT (Crl.) 141 (SC)*. These cases reinforced the principle that the right to default bail is automatic upon the expiry of the statutory period without the filing of a charge-sheet, provided the accused applies for it. The court noted that the failure to grant default bail promptly undermines the accused's personal liberty, as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to default bail as their applications were filed after the statutory period had lapsed without the filing of a charge-sheet. The dismissal of their applications by the trial court was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the court granted default bail to the petitioners, subject to specific conditions, including the execution of a self-bond, regular reporting to the investigating officer, and restrictions on leaving the state without permission.

Conditions for Bail:
1. Execution of a self-bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.
2. Regular reporting to the investigating officer and attending court proceedings.
3. Restrictions on leaving the state without prior permission.
4. Submission of full address, property, and bank account details, and surrendering passports if any.

In conclusion, the court allowed the criminal petitions and granted statutory bail to the petitioners, emphasizing the importance of upholding the indefeasible right to default bail and ensuring compliance with the procedural safeguards outlined in the judicial precedents.