Saravanan v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated
24.06.2020 in Criminal O.P.(MD) No. 6214 of 2020 and order dated
27.07.2020 in Criminal M.P.(MD) No. 3622 of 2020 passed by the
Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, by which the High Court has
released the appellant on default bail/statutory bail, on condition to deposit
Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the credit of crime No. 31 of
2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nager coil,
Kanyakumari District, the original accused has preferred the present
appeals.
3. That the appellant herein was arrested and remanded to the
judicial custody on 31.01.2020 for the offences punishable under Section
420 of the IPC in Crime No.31 of 2019 on the file of the D.C.B. Police
Station, Kanyakumari District. That the appellant h erein filed an
application before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking bail under
Section 437 Cr.P.C. That the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit
before the learned Magistrate and assured to pay Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs only) and the balance amount to be paid on or before
06.04.2020, against the alleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/- (Rupees Fifteen
lakhs Sixty Seven thousand Three hundred thirty eight only). Therefore,
by order dated 3.2.2020, the learned Magistrate released the appell ant
on bail on the conditions stated in the said order. One of the conditions
was directing the appellant to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- in the Court, and the
balance amount of Rs. 8,67,338/- was directed to be deposited on or
before 06.04.2020.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with condition nos. 2 and 3
of the order passed by the learned Magistrate releasing the appellant on
bail, i.e, directing the appellant to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-, out of the total
alleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/- and the balance to be deposited on or
before 6.4.2020, the appellant approached the High Court by way of
Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020. The High Court dismissed the said
application with liberty to the appellant to approach the Magistrate Court
for any modification and observed that if any modification is required,
the same may be considered by the Magistrate. That there after, the
appellant filed an application before the learned Sessions Court being
1039
Criminal M.P. No. 1695/2020 to release the appellant on default bail/
statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. It was the case on behalf of
the appellant that he was arrested and remanded on 31.01.2020 and he
is inside the jail for more than 101 days and the investigation is not
completed and the police has not filed the final report within the period
provided under Section 167 Cr.P.C. The said application came to be
dismissed by the learned Sessions Court on the ground that earlier when
the appellant applied for regular bail and which was allowed on condition
to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- in the Court and the same has not been complied
with, and despite the liberty reserved by the High Court to approach the
Magistrate Court for modification of the conditions, instead of doing so,
the appellant has filed an application for default bail/statutory bail under
Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, the learned Sessions Court dismissed
the said application.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Cou rt
and prayed to release the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It was
the case on behalf of the appellant that non-deposit of any amount which
was required to be deposited pursuant to the order passed by the learned
Magistrate, imposed while releasing the appellant on regular bail under
Section 437, Cr.P.C., shall not come in the way of the appellant-accused
in getting default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. It was
submitted that the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.
is mandatory bail, provided the conditions in Section 167 Cr.P.C. are
satisfied, i.e., investigation is not completed and the chargesheet/report
is not filed by the investigating agency within the time stipulated under
Section 167 Cr.P.C. The High Court, by the impugned judgment a nd
order dated 24.06.2020 accepted the same, however, considering the
earlier undertaking given by the wife of the appellant in the Court of the
learned Magistrate while considering the regular bail application under
Section 437, Cr.P.C., i.e., to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-, while releasing the
appellant on default bail/statutory bail, the High Court has imposed the
condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- before
the learned Magistrate. That thereafter, the appellant preferred application
being Criminal MP(MD) No. 3622 of 2020 before the High Court to
modify condition nos. (b) and (d) in Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214/2020
by which the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- before the
learned Judicial Magistrate and the appellant was directed to report before
the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for
interrogation. By the impugned order dated 27.07.2020, the High Court
SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
has dismissed the said application for modification observing that earlier
wife of the appellant filed affidavit before the learned Ma gistrate to
deposit Rs.7,00,000/- and the alleged amount is Rs.32,23,073/-, condition
nos. (b) and (d) in order dated 24.06.2020 in Criminal OP(MD) No.
6214/2020 are not required to be modified. Hence, the present appeals.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant ha s
vehemently submitted that condition nos. (b) and (d) imposed by t he
High Court imposed while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory
bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C is contrary to the scheme of Section
167 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as observed by this Court in catena
of decisions, the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure delineates that
provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C. give due regard to the personal liberty
of a person. Without submission of charge sheet within 60 days or 90
days, as may be applicable, an accused cannot be detained by the Police.
The provision gives due recognition to the personal liberty. It is submitted
that as held by this Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam,
(2017) 15 SCC 67 , where investigation is not completed within 60 days
or 90 days, as the case may be, no chargesheet is filed on the 60 th or 90 th
day, accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail,
accused becomes entitled to default bail, it cannot be frustr ated either
by the prosecution or the Court. It is submitted that it is further held that
accused need not make out any grounds for grant of default bail but only
needs to state that 60/90 days, as the case may be, ha ve expired,
chargesheet not filed, he is entitled to bail and willing to furnish the same.
It is submitted that therefore condition nos. (b) and (d) imposed by the
High Court while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail are
against the scheme of Section 167, Cr. P.C.
6.1 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant that affidavit filed by the wife of the appellant before the
learned Magistrate to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- and the earlier order passed
by the learned Magistrate to release the appellant on deposit of Rs.15,
67,338/- was with respect to regular bail under Section 437, Cr.P.C. and
the same shall not come in the way of the appellant in getting the default
bail/statutory bail, if a case is made out under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. It
is submitted that, as such, and in fact the High Court has acce pted the
same and has released the appellant on default bail/statutory bail, however,
with condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- on the ground that while considering
the regular bail application under Section 437, Cr.P.C., the wife of the
1041
appellant agreed to and filed affidavit to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. It is
submitted that condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- while relea sing the
appellant on default bail/statutory bail on the aforesaid g round would
defeat the very purpose of grant of default bail/statutor y bail. It is
submitted that while considering the default bail/statutory bail, the only
thing which is required to be considered and the statutory requirement is
that the statutory period for filing the chargesheet or challan has expired
and the accused is prepared to furnish the bail.
6.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeals and delete condition nos. (b) and (d) of order dated 24.06.2020
passed by the High Court in Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020.
7. Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State has tried to support the impugned
order(s) passed by the High Court by submitting that as earlier the wife
of the appellant filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate to deposit
Rs.7,00,000/- and the alleged amount was Rs.15,67,338/-, probably the
High Court has imposed condition no. (b) directing the appellant to deposit
Rs.8,00,000/-.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective par ties
at length.
The short question which is posed for the consideration of this
Court is, whether while releasing the appellant-accused on default bail/
statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., any condition of deposit of
amount as imposed by the High Court, could have been imposed?
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective par ties
and considering the scheme and the object and purpose of default bail/
statutory bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a
grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum
of Rs.8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory
bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking
into consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular
bail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellant
filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. However, as observed
by this Court in catena of decisions and more particularly in the case of
Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) , where the investigation is not completed
within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargeshe et is
filed by 60 th or 90 th day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default
SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
bail, and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused
applies for default bail and furnish bail. Therefore, the only requirement
for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is
that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may
be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not
completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60 th or 90 th day and the accused
applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition
of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Im posing
such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail
would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section
167(2), Cr.P.C. As observed by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar
Paul (supra) and in other decisions , the accused is entitled to default
bail/statutory bail, subject to the eventuality occurring in S ection 167,
Cr.P.C., namely, investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days,
as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60 th or 90 th day and
the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail.
9.1 As observed hereinabove and even from the impugned orders
passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court while releasing
the appellant on default bail/statutory bail has imposed the condition to
deposit Rs.8,00,000/- taking into consideration that earlier befo re the
learned Magistrate and while considering the regular bail a pplication
under Section 437 Cr.P.C., the wife of the accused filed an affidavit to
deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. That cannot be a ground to impose the condition
to deposit the amount involved, while granting default bail/statutory bail.
9.2. The circumstances while considering the regula r bail
application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, while considering
the application for default bail/statutory bail. Under the circumstances,
the condition imposed by the High Court to deposit Rs.8,00,000/-, while
releasing the appellant on default bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. Now so far as condition no. (d) imposed by the High Court,
namely, directing the appellant to report before the concer ned police
station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for inter rogation is
concerned, the same is also unsustainable, as it is too harsh. Instead,
condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate
with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain
present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation
as and when called for, and on breach the investigating office r can
1043
approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on brea ch of
such condition.
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, t he
present appeals succeed. Condition No. (b) of order dated 24.06.2020
passed by the High Court in Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020, i.e.,
directing the appellant to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- to the credit of crime No.
31 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District, while releasing the appellant on defa ult bail, is
hereby quashed and set aside. Condition no. (d), namely, directing the
appellant to report before the concerned police station at 10:00 a.m.
daily, until further orders for interrogation is hereby modified to the extent
and it is directed that the appellant shall co-operate with the investigating
agency and shall report the concerned police station as and when called
for investigation/interrogation and on non-cooperation, the consequences
including cancellation of the bail shall follow. Rest of the conditions
imposed by the High Court in order dated 24.06.2020 are maintained.
13. The appeals are allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms.
Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.
SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[M. R. SHAH, J.]