Default bail is unavailable once a timely complaint is filed, and an erroneously granted bail order may be cancelled.

Where a combined complaint was filed within the statutory period, the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not survive merely because the filing was not brought to the bail court's notice. The Supreme Court further held that bail granted on an erroneous or incomplete factual premise could be cancelled under Section 439(2), since such cancellation is distinct from cancellation for later misconduct. Applying these principles, the Court upheld cancellation of the default bail and left the accused to seek regular bail in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was available when a combined complaint had already been filed within the prescribed period, though not brought to the notice of the court granting bail. (ii) Whether bail granted under Section 167(2) could be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the order was passed without notice of the earlier filing of the complaint.

Issue (i): Whether default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was available when a combined complaint had already been filed within the prescribed period, though not brought to the notice of the court granting bail.

Analysis: The material on record showed that a combined complaint covering the seizure at Hyderabad and the related Omerga case had been filed within the statutory period. The complaint specifically referred to the appellants and the narcotic substance allegedly transported from Omerga to Chennai. Since the complaint was filed before expiry of the period, the right to default bail did not survive merely because that fact was not communicated when the bail application was decided.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (ii): Whether bail granted under Section 167(2) could be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the order was passed without notice of the earlier filing of the complaint.

Analysis: Bail granted on the basis of an erroneous or incomplete factual premise can be cancelled under Section 439(2) because such cancellation is distinct from cancellation for supervening misconduct. The High Court was shown that the combined complaint had already been filed within time and that the omission to place that fact before the court below led to an unsustainable grant of default bail. In those circumstances, cancellation of the bail order was justified.

Conclusion: The bail granted under Section 167(2) was validly cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The common order cancelling the default bail was upheld, and the appellants were left to pursue regular bail in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a charge-sheet or combined complaint is filed within the statutory period, default bail cannot be sustained, and an erroneously granted bail order may be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---