Skip to main content

Default Bail Can Be Cancelled On Merits After Filing Of Chargesheet

Image

On 16.01.2023, A division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2023 titled The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy has decided a substantial question of law relating to the cancelation of default bail, wherein, Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, a former M.L.A.; former Member of Lok Sabha; former Member of A.P. Legislative Council; and holding other posts was found dead in his house in 2019. A case under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC was registered. The State constituted an SIT. During the course of the investigation, the Respondent (Accused1) was arrested. On the expiration of 90 days, Respondent was released on default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Investigation into the above crime was entrusted to the Appellant(CBI). The CBI filed the initial/first chargesheet and named A1 to A4. Thereafter, the CBI filed an application before the Special Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for the cancelation of the bail granted to the Respondent, which came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the CBI filed the Criminal Petition before the High Court under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent. The High Court has rejected the said petition mainly on the ground that once the Respondent was released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., thereafter, the bail cannot be canceled on merits. The CBI has preferred an appeal to SC against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. 

The question before SC for consideration:-

Whether the bail granted under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C can be canceled after the presentation of a chargesheet. If yes, then, on what grounds and circumstances, the bail can be canceled?


Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a three-judge bench decision in Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272, laid down the following laws,

  1. Release of an accused on default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is not on merits, but on the failure of the investigating agency in completing the investigation and filing the chargesheet within the stipulated time prescribed therein;

  2. That every person released on bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII Cr.P.C., which includes Sections 437(5) and 439(2); 

  3. That the bail in favour of a person, who is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be canceled on the mere filing of the charge sheet but can be canceled on making out a special and strong ground that commission of a non-bailable crime is disclosed from the charge sheet.


The Hon’ble Supreme Court has answered in the affirmative and held that in a case where an accused is released on default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., and thereafter, on the filing of the chargesheet, a strong case is made out and on special reasons being made out from the chargesheet that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime and considering the grounds set out in Sections 437(5) and Section 439(2), his bail can be canceled on merits and the Courts are not precluded from considering the application for cancelation of the bail on merits. However, the mere filing of the chargesheet is not enough, but on the basis of the chargesheet, a strong case is to be made out that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime and he deserves to be in custody.



Cited authorities at the bar - 

  1. Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272

  2. Abdul Basit Alias Raju and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Anr., (2014) 10 SCC 754

  3. Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722

  4. Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67

  5. Raghubir Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481.

  6. Rajnikant Jivanlal and Anr. Vs. Intelligence Officer, NCB, New Delhi, (1989) 3 SCC 532)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

All Cases of Sexual Intercourse Based on a False Promise of Marriage NOT Covered under Section 69 of the BNS

Recently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Yash Dayal, a Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) player, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for engaging in sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that, relying on Yash Dayal’s false promise of marriage, she consented to sexual intercourse. Notably, the FIR was not registered under Section 64 (rape) of the BNS. This raises the question: Are all cases of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage (vitiated consent) now exclusively covered under Section 69 of the BNS? Prior to the enactment of the BNS, sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage was punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and classified as rape. This classification stemmed from Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape as, inter alia, sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, and Section 90, which states that consent given under a misconceptio...
Post a Comment
Read more

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...
Post a Comment
Read more

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction  The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...
Post a Comment
Read more