SARAVANAN versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 15 October 2020

[2020] 8 S.C.R. 1035

SARAVANAN

v.

STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 681-682 of 2020)

OCTOBER 15, 2020

[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY ANDM. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167 – Conditionimposed to deposit a sum on default/statutory bail – Sustainabilityof – The High Court accepted the prayer of the appellant to releasehim on the default bail/statutory bail u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C., however,considering the earlier undertaking given by the wife of the appellantin the Court of the Magistrate while considering bail applicationu/s. 437 Cr. P.C. i.e. to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/-, while releasing theappellant on default bail/statutory bail, the High Court imposedthe condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum ofRs.8,00,000/- before the Magistrate and was also directed to reportbefore the concerned police station daily at 10.00 a.m., until furtherorders, for interrogation – On appeal, held: The High Court hascommitted a grave error in imposing a condition that the appellantshall deposit a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- while releasing the appellanton default bail/ statutory bail – The only requirement for getting thedefault bail/statutory bail u/s. 167(2), Cr. P.C. is that the accused isin jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completedand no chargesheet is filed by 60[th] or 90[th] day and the accusedapplies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail – No othercondition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed– Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on defaultbail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose ofdefault bail u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. – Thus, the condition imposed bythe High Court to deposit Rs. 8,00,000/-, while releasing theappellant on default bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and isquashed – Also, the condition imposed by the High Court, namely,directing the appellant to report before the concerned police stationat 10.00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned,

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Athe same is also unsustainable as it is too harsh – Instead, theappellant is directed to cooperate with the investigating officer incompleting the investigation and to remain present before theconcerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and whencalled for.

BAllowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The short question which is posed for theconsideration of this Court is, whether while releasing theappellant-accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section167(2), Cr.P.C., any condition of deposit of amount as imposedCby the High Court, could have been imposed? [Para 8][1041-E]

Conclusion

2. Considering the scheme and the object and purpose ofdefault bail/statutory bail, this Court is of the opinion that theHigh Court has committed a grave error in imposing conditionthat the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- whileDreleasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appearsthat the High Court has imposed such a condition taking intoconsideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of theregular bail application, before the Magistrate, the wife of theappellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-.However, as observed by this Court in catena of decisions andEmore particularly in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul, where theinvestigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as thecase may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60[th] or 90[th] day, accusedgets an “indefeasible right” to default bail, and the accusedbecomes entitled to default bail once the accused applies forFdefault bail and furnish bail. Therefore, the only requirement forgetting 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 thecase may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, theinvestigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60[th]or 90[th] day and the accused applies for default bail and is preparedGto furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amountinvolved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasingthe accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the veryobject and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.[Para 9][1041-F-H; 1042-A-C]H

SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

3. The circumstances while considering the regular bailapplication under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, whileconsidering the application for default bail/statutory bail. Underthe circumstances, the condition imposed by the High Court todeposit Rs.8,00,000/-, while releasing the appellant on defaultbail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashedand set aside. [Para 9.2][1042-F]

4. Now so far as condition imposed by the High Court,namely, directing the appellant to report before the concernedpolice station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, forinterrogation is concerned, the same is also unsustainable, as itis too harsh. Instead, condition which can be imposed is directingthe appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer incompleting the investigation and to remain present before theconcerned police station for investigation/interrogation as andwhen called for, and on breach the investigating officer canapproach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on breachof such condition. [Para 10][1042-G-H; 1043-A]

Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC67: [2017] 8 SCR 785 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2017] 8 SCR 785

referred toPara 6

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNos. 681-682 of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2020 of the MaduraiBench of Madras High Court in CRL OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020 and27.07.2020 in CRL MP(MD) No. 3622 of 2020 in CRL OP(MD) No.6214 of 2020.

Jayanth Muthuraj, Sr. Adv., Sriram P., B. Raghunath, M. YogeshKanna, Rajarajeswaran, Advs. for the appearing parties.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1038SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order datedB24.06.2020 in Criminal O.P.(MD) No. 6214 of 2020 and order dated27.07.2020 in Criminal M.P.(MD) No. 3622 of 2020 passed by theMadurai Bench of the Madras High Court, by which the High Court hasreleased the appellant on default bail/statutory bail, on condition to depositRs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the credit of crime No. 31 of2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil,CKanyakumari District, the original accused has preferred the presentappeals.

3. That the appellant herein was arrested and remanded to thejudicial custody on 31.01.2020 for the offences punishable under Section420 of the IPC in Crime No.31 of 2019 on the file of the D.C.B. PoliceDStation, Kanyakumari District. That the appellant herein filed anapplication before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking bail underSection 437 Cr.P.C. That the wife of the appellant filed an affidavitbefore the learned Magistrate and assured to pay Rs.7,00,000/- (RupeesSeven Lakhs only) and the balance amount to be paid on or beforeE06.04.2020, against the alleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/- (Rupees Fifteenlakhs Sixty Seven thousand Three hundred thirty eight only). Therefore,by order dated 3.2.2020, the learned Magistrate released the appellanton bail on the conditions stated in the said order. One of the conditionswas directing the appellant to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- in the Court, and thebalance amount of Rs. 8,67,338/- was directed to be deposited on orFbefore 06.04.2020.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with condition nos. 2 and 3of the order passed by the learned Magistrate releasing the appellant onbail, i.e, directing the appellant to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-, out of the totalalleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/- and the balance to be deposited on orGbefore 6.4.2020, the appellant approached the High Court by way ofCriminal OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020. The High Court dismissed the saidapplication with liberty to the appellant to approach the Magistrate Courtfor any modification and observed that if any modification is required,the same may be considered by the Magistrate. That thereafter, theappellant filed an application before the learned Sessions Court beingH

SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE[M. R. SHAH, J.]

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 ofthe appellant that he was arrested and remanded on 31.01.2020 and heis inside the jail for more than 101 days and the investigation is notcompleted and the police has not filed the final report within the periodprovided under Section 167 Cr.P.C. The said application came to bedismissed by the learned Sessions Court on the ground that earlier whenthe appellant applied for regular bail and which was allowed on conditionto deposit Rs.7,00,000/- in the Court and the same has not been compliedwith, and despite the liberty reserved by the High Court to approach theMagistrate Court for modification of the conditions, instead of doing so,the appellant has filed an application for default bail/statutory bail underSection 167(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, the learned Sessions Court dismissedthe said application.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Courtand prayed to release the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It wasthe case on behalf of the appellant that non-deposit of any amount whichwas required to be deposited pursuant to the order passed by the learnedMagistrate, imposed while releasing the appellant on regular bail underSection 437, Cr.P.C., shall not come in the way of the appellant-accusedin getting default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. It wassubmitted 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. aresatisfied, i.e., investigation is not completed and the chargesheet/reportis not filed by the investigating agency within the time stipulated underSection 167 Cr.P.C. The High Court, by the impugned judgment andorder dated 24.06.2020 accepted the same, however, considering theearlier undertaking given by the wife of the appellant in the Court of thelearned Magistrate while considering the regular bail application underSection 437, Cr.P.C., i.e., to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-, while releasing theappellant on default bail/statutory bail, the High Court has imposed thecondition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- beforethe learned Magistrate. That thereafter, the appellant preferred applicationbeing Criminal MP(MD) No. 3622 of 2020 before the High Court tomodify condition nos. (b) and (d) in Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214/2020by which the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- before thelearned Judicial Magistrate and the appellant was directed to report beforethe concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, forinterrogation. By the impugned order dated 27.07.2020, the High Court A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ahas dismissed the said application for modification observing that earlierwife of the appellant filed affidavit before the learned Magistrate todeposit Rs.7,00,000/- and the alleged amount is Rs.32,23,073/-, conditionnos. (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.

B6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant hasvehemently submitted that condition nos. (b) and (d) imposed by theHigh Court imposed while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutorybail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C is contrary to the scheme of Section167 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as observed by this Court in catenaof decisions, the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure delineates thatCprovisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C. give due regard to the personal libertyof a person. Without submission of charge sheet within 60 days or 90days, as may be applicable, an accused cannot be detained by the Police.The provision gives due recognition to the personal liberty. It is submittedthat as held by this Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam,D(2017) 15 SCC 67, where investigation is not completed within 60 daysor 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 frustrated eitherby the prosecution or the Court. It is submitted that it is further held thataccused need not make out any grounds for grant of default bail but onlyEneeds to state that 60/90 days, as the case may be, have 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 theHigh Court while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail areagainst the scheme of Section 167, Cr. P.C.F

6.1 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellant that affidavit filed by the wife of the appellant before thelearned Magistrate to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- and the earlier order passedby 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. andGthe same shall not come in the way of the appellant in getting the defaultbail/statutory bail, if a case is made out under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. Itis submitted that, as such, and in fact the High Court has accepted thesame and has released the appellant on default bail/statutory bail, however,with condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- on the ground that while consideringthe regular bail application under Section 437, Cr.P.C., the wife of theH

SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE[M. R. SHAH, J.]

appellant agreed to and filed affidavit to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. It issubmitted that condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- while releasing theappellant on default bail/statutory bail on the aforesaid ground woulddefeat the very purpose of grant of default bail/statutory bail. It issubmitted that while considering the default bail/statutory bail, the onlything which is required to be considered and the statutory requirement isthat the statutory period for filing the chargesheet or challan has expiredand the accused is prepared to furnish the bail.

6.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the presentappeals and delete condition nos. (b) and (d) of order dated 24.06.2020passed by the High Court in Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020.

7. Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing on behalf of the State has tried to support the impugnedorder(s) passed by the High Court by submitting that as earlier the wifeof the appellant filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate to depositRs.7,00,000/- and the alleged amount was Rs.15,67,338/-, probably theHigh Court has imposed condition no. (b) directing the appellant to depositRs.8,00,000/-.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.

The short question which is posed for the consideration of thisCourt is, whether while releasing the appellant-accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., any condition of deposit ofamount as imposed by the High Court, could have been imposed?

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesand considering the scheme and the object and purpose of default bail/statutory bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed agrave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sumof Rs.8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutorybail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition takinginto consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regularbail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellantfiled an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. However, as observedby this Court in catena of decisions and more particularly in the case ofRakesh Kumar Paul (supra), where the investigation is not completedwithin 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet isfiled by 60[th] or 90[th] day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abail, and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accusedapplies for default bail and furnish bail. Therefore, the only requirementfor getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. isthat the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case maybe, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is notcompleted and no chargesheet is filed by 60[th] or 90[th] day and the accusedBapplies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other conditionof deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposingsuch condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bailwould frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section167(2), Cr.P.C. As observed by this Court in the case of Rakesh KumarCPaul (supra) and in other decisions, the accused is entitled to defaultbail/statutory bail, subject to the eventuality occurring in Section 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 andthe accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail.

D9.1 As observed hereinabove and even from the impugned orderspassed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court while releasingthe appellant on default bail/statutory bail has imposed the condition todeposit Rs.8,00,000/- taking into consideration that earlier before thelearned Magistrate and while considering the regular bail applicationunder Section 437 Cr.P.C., the wife of the accused filed an affidavit toEdeposit Rs.7,00,000/-. That cannot be a ground to impose the conditionto deposit the amount involved, while granting default bail/statutory bail.

9.2. The circumstances while considering the regular bailapplication under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, while consideringthe application for default bail/statutory bail. Under the circumstances,Fthe condition imposed by the High Court to deposit Rs.8,00,000/-, whilereleasing the appellant on default bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable anddeserves 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 concerned policeGstation daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation isconcerned, the same is also unsustainable, as it is too harsh. Instead,condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperatewith the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remainpresent before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogationHas and when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on breach ofsuch condition.

11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals succeed. Condition No. (b) of order dated 24.06.2020passed 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 default bail, ishereby quashed and set aside. Condition no. (d), namely, directing theappellant to report before the concerned police station at 10:00 a.m.daily, until further orders for interrogation is hereby modified to the extentand it is directed that the appellant shall co-operate with the investigatingagency and shall report the concerned police station as and when calledfor investigation/interrogation and on non-cooperation, the consequencesincluding cancellation of the bail shall follow. Rest of the conditionsimposed 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.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H