Granted bail in crime No.80/2020 under Section 439 CrPC. Court ruled that the charge sheet was filed by the Magistrate at 10:00 AM on the 91st day, preceding the accused's bail application filed at 11:00 AM. Thus, the accused had no indefeasible right to default bail, and the petition was dismissed.
Criminal Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.985 of 2021
BETWEEN
A.P. ABHIJITH S/O. PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ARISHINAGERE VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE for SRI H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY BASARALU POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME No.80/2020 REGISTERED BY BASARALU POLICE STATION, MANDYA RURAL CIRCLE, MANDYA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 404, 416 AND 424 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 66(C) AND 66(D) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.06.2021 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT , THIS DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.80/2020 registered by the Basaralu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 404, 416 and 424 of the IPC and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’)
3
the Police till 20.08.2020. Accordingly, the accused was remanded to Police custody till 20.08.2020. Later, from 20.08.2020, the remand of accused was extended till 17.11.2020. On that date, the Police filed the charge sheet. The further case of the petitioner-accused is that on the same day, he filed an application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. for default bail. The same is reflected in the order sheet of the learned Magistrate, but in the afternoon, it was mentioned in the order sheet that the Police filed the charge sheet and therefore, the right of default bail to the accused under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is not applicable. Hence, the bail petition came to be rejected by order dated 17.11.2020 and again the petitioner moved the bail petition before the Sessions Judge under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which also came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4
19.08.2020. If the period is calculated till 17.11.2020, it comes to 91 days. Prior to filing of the charge sheet, the accused filed an application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet came to be filed only in the afternoon i.e. subsequent to the filing of the application by the accused and thereby the accused gets the indefeasible right for getting default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. In support of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 382 and S. Kasi vs. State through the Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 529.
5
custody on 19.08.2020 and 20.08.2020. The date on which the accused was given to the Police custody cannot be counted for the purpose of detention in calculating 90 days and therefore, the charge sheet is within 90 days. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
6
along with documents and cognizance was taken as well the order under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. was passed dismissing the application. Hence, the only point that arises for consideration is as follows:
7
have also noticed the observations of this Court in AIR 1962 SC 1506 (supra). In such circumstances broken periods of custody can be counted whether custody is suffered by the order of the Magistrate or superior courts, if investigation remains incomplete after the custody, whether continuous or broken periods pieced together reaches the requisite period; default bail becomes the right of the detained person.”
Further, he relied upon paragraph 26 of the judgment in the case of S. Kasi (supra), which is as follows:
“ We, thus, are of the view that neither this Court in its order dated 23.03.2020 can be held to have eclipsed the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) regarding his indefeasible right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed. The learned Single Judge committed serious error in reading such
8
restriction in the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020.”
9
the date on which the accused was produced shall be excluded and the last day should be included in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of Ravi Prakash Singh alias Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (2015) 8 SCC 340 at paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under;
“ 12. In State of M.P. v. Rustam and others, this Court has laid down the law that while computing period of ninety days, the day on which the accused was remanded to the judicial custody should be excluded, and the day on which challan is filed in the court, should be included. That being so, in our opinion, in the present case, date 5.7.2013 is to be excluded and, as such, the charge sheet was filed on ninetieth day, i.e., 3.10.2013. Therefore, there is no infringement of Section 167(2) of the Code.”
10
judicial custody shall have to be calculated for the purpose of detention, in this case, the accused was remanded to judicial custody only on 19.08.2020 and the period is calculated as under:
August - 12 days September - 30 days October - 31 days November - 17 days Total - 90 days.
The charge sheet is filed on 17.11.2020. Therefore, the charge sheet is within 90 days and the accused will not get the right of default bail on the 90th day, but he will get the right of bail on the 91st day if the charge sheet is not filed. Even otherwise, by excluding 18.08.2020, if the period is calculated from 19.08.2020, it comes to 91st day. 17.11.2020 falls on the 91st day and as per the endorsement made by the Magistrate in the charge sheet, the charge sheet came to be filed at 10.00 a.m. on 17.11.2020 and the learned Magistrate directe d the office to check and put-up the same by 3.00 p.m. Even if it is
11
considered on the 91st day, the application filed by the accused is at 11.00 a.m., but prior to that, the Police have already filed the charge sheet which is available in the order sheet and the Magistrate has made an endorsement regarding the receipt of charge sheet. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also not disputing the endorsement made by the Magistrate on the charge sheet. He argued that the charge sheet is required to be filed during the Court hours as per Chapter-2 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. But that contention cannot be acceptable. Learned Magistrate can receive the charge sheet even at 10.00 a.m. as the office hours starts much prior to commencement of Court as the Court sitting hours starts at 11.00 a.m. When the learned counsel for the accused has not disputed the endorsement in respect of the charge sheet filed at 10.00 a.m., it amounts to filing of the charge sheet prior to filing of the application by the accused under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Merely it was not mentioned in the order sheet which was written in the open the Court after 11.00 a.m., even without knowledge
12
of receiving the charge sheet by the Magistrate in the office at 10.00 a.m., it cannot be said that the accused got the right of default bail. It is a clear case that prior to filing of the application by the learned counsel for the accused, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet in the office at 10.00 a.m. Therefore, the accused will not get the right of default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
Sd/JUDGE
mv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on grounds that the charge sheet was filed after the application was made.
Whether the period of detention includes the day of production before the Magistrate for calculating the 90-day limit for filing the charge sheet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation AgencyReferred¶26
2021 SCC OnLine SC 382 · Who else cites this
S. Kasi vs. State through the Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police StationReferred¶26
2020 SCC OnLine SC 529 · Who else cites this
Ravi Prakash Singh alias Arvind Singh vs. State of BiharRelied on¶44
(2015) 8 SCC 340 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
A.P. Abhijith
State
K. Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court