2022 (3) TMI 1429 - HC - Indian Laws

Petitioner not entitled to default bail post-chargesheet filing under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

The Court held that the Petitioner was not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. despite chargesheet filing, as the right to default bail ... Default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - completion of investigation - effect of filing of chargesheet on statutory right to bail - cognizance by the trial court vis-a -vis compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - right to personal liberty under Article 21Default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - effect of filing of chargesheet on statutory right to bail - cognizance by the trial court vis-a -vis compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Whether an accused is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. where a chargesheet has been filed within the statutory period but the trial court has not taken cognizance of the offences. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. confers an indefeasible right to statutory bail only where the investigation is not completed and a chargesheet has not been filed within the prescribed period. Once a chargesheet is filed within the stipulated period, that statutory right to default bail stands extinguished and the accused's remedy is to seek regular bail on merits. The Court applied the reasoning in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain and Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi , observing that those decisions uniformly treat filing of the chargesheet within the statutory period as sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) and that whether cognizance is subsequently taken by the trial court is immaterial for the purpose of Section 167(2). The Court noted that supplementary material (such as an FSL report or a video) can be filed by way of a supplementary chargesheet and that the possibility of such further investigation does not revive the accused's claim to default bail once the original chargesheet was filed in time. Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that the petitioner, arrested on 20.08.2021, had a chargesheet filed on 14.10.2021 within the statutory period and therefore could not claim statutory/default bail despite cognizance not yet being taken by the trial court. [Paras 9, 11, 12, 14, 15]The petitioner is not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as the chargesheet was filed within the statutory period; cognizance by the trial court is immaterial for compliance with Section 167(2).Final Conclusion: The petition is dismissed; since the chargesheet was filed within the statutory period, the petitioner cannot claim default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and the question of cognizance by the trial court does not revive that statutory right. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. when chargesheet has been filed but cognizance has not been taken by the Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Entitlement to Default Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:The primary issue before the Court was whether the Petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. despite the chargesheet being filed within the prescribed period, but without the Court taking cognizance of the offences.Facts of the Case:- The victim child, aged 13, was allegedly sexually assaulted by 2-3 boys in the neighborhood. The incident was reported by the victim's mother to the police, leading to the registration of FIR No. 312/2021 under Sections 377/34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.- The Petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2021 and remanded to judicial custody, which was extended multiple times. The regular bail application was dismissed on 29.09.2021.- The Petitioner filed a second bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that cognizance of the offences had not been taken by the Trial Court, despite the chargesheet being filed on 14.10.2021.Arguments by the Petitioner:- The Petitioner argued that under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period and the chargesheet is not filed, the accused has a statutory right to bail.- It was contended that the chargesheet filed was incomplete, as the statement of the child victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. mentioned a video recording, prompting the Trial Court to issue notice without taking cognizance.- The Petitioner cited Supreme Court judgments, including M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, and Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, to argue that the right to default bail accrues if cognizance is not taken within the statutory period.Arguments by the Respondent:- The State opposed the bail application, asserting that the filing of the chargesheet within the stipulated period extinguishes the right to default bail, regardless of whether cognizance has been taken.Court's Analysis:- The Court examined Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., which provides an indefeasible right to statutory bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period.- The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, which clarified that the filing of the chargesheet within the stipulated time suffices for compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and the right to default bail does not arise once the chargesheet is filed, irrespective of cognizance.- The Court also cited Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, which reiterated that the right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. arises only if the chargesheet is not filed within the statutory period.Conclusion:- The Court concluded that the Petitioner was not entitled to default bail as the chargesheet was filed within the prescribed period, and the requirement of cognizance being taken is immaterial for compliance with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.- The petition was dismissed, affirming that the filing of the chargesheet within the stipulated time extinguishes the right to default bail.Order:- The petition for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed, along with any pending applications.This comprehensive analysis covers the legal reasoning and significant phrases from the original judgment, ensuring a thorough understanding of the issues involved and the Court's decision.