COURT NAME: IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 701-702 OF 2020
APPELLANT: Enforcement Directorate
RESPONDENT: Kapil Wadhawan
JUDGE/ BENCH: Judge K.M. Joseph; Judge Hrishikesh Roy; Judge B.V. Nagarathna.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 27th March 2023
STATUES INVOLVED: Civil Code of Criminal Procedure, General Clauses Act.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- Respondents were confined in judicial custody since 10.05.2020 for the alleged commission of an offense under Section 3 of PMLA. On 14.5.2020, respondents were produced before the Special Court, Mumbai, and remanded to police custody.
- After that, ED filed the complaint/final report before the court on 13.7.2020, and on the very same day, respondents also applied for default bail application under Section 167(2) of CrPC.
- Under Section 167(2) of CrPC, no magistrate shall authorize to detain the accused person in custody for a total period exceeding 60/90 days, and after 60/90 days, the accused person is entitled to default bail.
- In this case, 60 days expire on 12.7.2020 if including the remand date which was the arguments by respondents. But, if the remand date is excluded, 60 days expires on 13.7.2020 which was argued by ED and claimed that the final report was filed on time.
- Firstly, the matter went to the Special Court, here, the Special Judge agreed with ED and rejected the default bail as it excluded the remand date and computed 60 days from 15.5.2020 to grant default bail.
- The judgment of the Special Court was being challenged in the High Court. Here, the court concluded that the special judge incorrectly excluded the remand date, while computing the 60 days. Thus, the high court granted default bail to the respondents.
- This order of the High Court is challenged in the present appeals.
LEGAL ISSUE RAISED:
- Whether the remand date is to be included or excluded, for considering a claim for default bail under section 167 (2) of the CrPC.
APPELLANT CONTENTIONS:
- For calculating the prescribed 60/90 day remand period, either the remand date or the 60th day should be excluded. It took references to support his contention from Aslam Babalal Desai vs. State of Maharashtra, State of MP vs. Rustam, and Ravi Prakash Singh alias Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar.
- They argued that even if the 60 days expired on 12.07.2020 (Sunday), it would extend the period to the following Monday, i.e. 13.7.2020, by applying Section 10 of the General Clauses Act and taking reference from N. Sureya Reddy vs. State of Orissa.
- They also argued that the high court wrongly applied the ratio of the Chaganti vs. State of Andhra Pradesh case. According to them, in the Changanti case, since the arrest date is the same as the remand date, it was incorrectly applied in the present case.
RESPONDENT CONTENTIONS:
- They argued that excluding the first day of the remand period would be illogical under Section 167 (2) of CrPC. They based their argument on the ratio in Chaganti Satyanarayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
- This Chaganti case was earlier approved in several judgments such as New Delhi v. Anupama Kulkarni, Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, State v. Mohd Ashraf Bhat, and Gautam Navlakha v. NIA.
LEGAL SECTION INVOLVED:
- SECTION 167 of CrPC:
- Clause 1: When an accused is arrested by the police under section 57 of CrPC and the investigation can’t be completed within 24 hours, then, the accused person shall be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate.
- Clause 2: Upon finding necessary grounds for further detention, the magistrate may authorize the remand of the accused person in police or judicial custody but not exceeding 15 days, as a whole. However, it can be renewed after every 15 days.
- Clause 2(a): It provides conditions for extended detention. In a situation, where exists adequate reasons for further detention, the magistrate can authorize beyond the initial 15 days but not exceeding 60/90 days (depending on the offence). If the investigation is not completed within 60/90 days, the accused must be released on default bail.
- SECTION 56 of CrPC:
- The arrested person by the police officer should be presented before the magistrate having jurisdiction without any unnecessary delay.
- SECTION 57 of CrPC:
- No police officer shall detain the arrested person without a warrant for more than twenty-four hours.
RATIONALE:
- The court held that the remand date must be included in computing the 60/90 days for default bail.
- It was based on two fronts: firstly, the strict interpretation of Section 167(2) of CrPC. Since there is a vacuum in the applications and details of Section 167 of CrPC and it involved Article 21 of the constitution, the court interpreted the section which upholds and protects the personal liberty of the accused.
- SC in Gautam Navlakha’s case held that the right to default bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 and the interpretation is supported by the idea that constitutional law is logically and legally superior to statutory law.
- Similarly, in Bikramjit Singh’s case, the right to secure a default bail under Section 167 (2) of CrPC is a part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 and this right raised the status of the fundamental right.
- The custody on the remand date under Section 167 of CrPC is distinct from the period of arrest under Section 56 of CrPC and if the remand date ordered by the magistrate is not included, it would create a legal vacuum as the accused would neither be a police detainee nor under Magestrial Custody.
- Secondly, the inapplicability of General Clause Act Principles. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act may have some relevance if the statute prescribes the period of limitation and exclusion of ‘first day’ in a series of days. Here, the court observed that ‘the principle’ would be attracted if the series of days had both a beginning and an end.
- But in Section 167 of CrPC, there is no starting or ending point for completion of the investigation. However, the failure of a timely investigation, i.e. 60/90 days, may cause the accrual of default bail but the police can continue the investigation.
- Thus, the General Clauses Act Principle is inapplicable due to the absence of a specific time frame for investigation, and this followed the ratio of Chaganti’s case which also states that the General Clauses Act is inapplicable to section 167 of CrPC.
- The court also emphasized that the stipulated 60/90 days remand period ought to be computed from the date when a magistrate authorizes remand. If the first remand date is excluded, it will extend beyond the permitted 60/90 days period and will result in unauthorized detention under Section 167 of CrPC.
- In this case, the accused were remanded on 14.5.2020, and the final report ought to have been filed on or before 12.7.2020, i.e. the sixtieth day including the remand date. But, ED filed the final report on 13.7.2020 which was the 61st day of their custody.
- The court stated that when the chargesheet/ final report is filed on or after the 61st/ 91st day, the accused would be entitled to default bail. Thus, on the expiration of the 60/90-day remand period, an indefeasible right to default bail accrues to the accused.
- Therefore, the right to default bail accrued to the accused person on 13.7.2020 from midnight. On the very same day, the accused also filed their default bail application. Thus, the court granted the default bail to the respondents as the ED filed the final report on 13.7.2020 (the 61st day).
- The court concluded that the remand date must be included while computing the 60/90 days for default bail and in this case, the granted default bail to the respondents.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
- The lower court ignored the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian constitution. The prolonged detention of respondents raised serious concerns regarding their right to personal liberty under Article 21, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by the law.
- Also, it inadequately interpreted that section 167(2) of the CrPC resulted in unlawful detention beyond the permissible limits without offering default bail to respondents.
- This resulted in taking cognizance of the case by the Supreme Court to ensure that the due process of law is being followed and respondents receive a fair trial.
INFERENCE:
- This judgment shows the progressive interpretation of Section 167(2) of CrPC as it offers much more than mere calculation for computing default bail and reinforces the strict interpretation of the section to safeguard the rights of the accused.
- It also aims to provide certainty and consistency in the computation of the 60/90 days. This reduces the chance of conflicting judgment on this matter and sets a uniform principle and precedent for lower courts.
- This led to a stronger statutory bail regime that prioritizes the rights of the accused.
BHAWANA KEDIA
2nd YEAR (IV SEMESTER)
OP. JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY