Petitioner: Ritu Chabbaria
Respondent: Union of India and Others
Bench: Justice Krishna Murari, Justice C.T Ravikumar
Date of Judgement: April 26, 2023
Petition: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 60 of 2023
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine 502
Facts:
In this case, Ritu Chabbaria, wife of the accused, moved to the Supreme Court of India with an aim to provide her husband relief from the unlawful custody of the authorities. Article 32 of the Constitution of India was brought into picture in this particular matter by filing a writ petition. Here, the authorities filed a First Information Report (FIR) in which Sanjay Chhabaria’s (accused) name was not stated anywhere.
On May 26, 2020, the investigation agency filed two chargesheets where they mentioned the name of accuse as a prosecution witness. Later on, many complaints were also lodged in which the accused was not even named. On April 24, 2022, the accused was taken under the custody of the investigating body when the investigation was transferred to another officer. After that many chargesheets were again filed in which the name of suspect was mentioned and was held in custody under section 309(2) of CrPC, 1973. The investigating officers ensured that the custody of the accused was getting renewed on a continuous basis and he was never given his right to avail bail. The petitioner furnished all the relevant facts and evidences to ensure that the accuse gets bails.
On February 23, 2023, the Hon’ble Court passed an order granting temporary release from the custody. The Hon’ble Court observed that chargesheets which were being filed by the authority were to deprive the accuse from accessing his rights. This writ petition raised a serious issue regarding the prominence of personal liberty as given in “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution”.
Issues Raised:
In this case, following three issues were being raised:
- Whether law has provided the investigation authority the powers to file chargesheets or prosecution complaints when the investigation process, on the part of agency, is yet to be finished.
- Whether the right provided to the accused of getting default bail will be waived off when the authority, before completing the investigation process, files a chargesheet.
- Whether the custody of the accused person get extended beyond time stipulated in the CrPC by the Trial Court while the investigation is still being carried out.
Contentions:
By Petitioner:
- The advocate contended that the investigating body had accepted the fact that in written chargesheet that the investigation was still happening and despite this fact known the trial proceeded to formally start the case and the petitioner’s husband was taken in custody under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
- The advocate stated that infringement of the accused’s fundamental rights has happened by the respondent as result of unlawful detention, especially when the investigation is still not finished. He further stated that the provisions of the CrPC does not allow grant in the extension period of custody beyond sixty days even when the investigation was still going on. To support their argument, they cited the judgement granted in M. Ravindran V. The Intelligence Officer, directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
By Respondent:
- The advocate of respondent contended that Petitioner should not have filed a writ petition for bail, as it is not the proper or permissible course of action. Instead, they should have either challenged the magistrate’s order in the High Court or filed a Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) under “Article 136 of the Indian Constitution”.
- The advocate argued that arguments which are made by the Petitioner’s counsel, stands as inappropriate submission with respect to the absence of name of accused from the FIR. It is just an initial step in starting a criminal proceeding and it may not contain all the details. To support their argument, they cited “State of Bihar V/s. J.A.C Saldanha & Ors”.
- Also, Respondent stated that the chargesheet dated June 25, 2022 was a comprehensive document which contained all the offences committed by the accused.
Rationale:
Addressing first issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that no chargesheet or prosecution complaint can be filed against the accused subsequently without first completing the investigation. To support this statement, they quoted “Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973” which mandates that an accused person cannot be detained for more than specified period of time without the completion of the investigation. If the investigation authority fails to complete its investigation within given time, then the accuse has every right to seek bail.
The Bench referred judgement provided in Union of India V/s. Thamisharasi & Ors., wherein it was held that if the investigating authority fails to finish the process of investigation as well as filing of chargesheet within prescribed period, then denial of default bail would result into violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and also the twin limitation with respect to bail provisions wouldn’t be pertinent.
For issue number 2, the Supreme Court held that “even if the investigation authority files a chargesheet without completing the investigation, the right of default bail under section 167(2) of CrPC would not get extinguished”.
Here, Ashok Munilal Jain & Anr. V/s. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement was also referred wherein judgement stated that right of default bail which is provided in CrPC is an indefeasible right (i.e. a legal right that has been granted for certain without any conditions) granted to the accused person including the matters of with respect to Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Further addressing issue number 3, it was held that the trial Court has no powers to extend the custody of the accused beyond time period stipulated by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.
Defects of Law:
This case clearly points the defect of law in stating what exactly should be the time limit for completion of investigation of those cases where there is longer and deeper investigation required like matters under CBI, Narcotics etc. Section 167(2) of CrPC provides that if investigation is not concluded within 15 days, an extension can be received of ninety days for those matters where the offence involves severe punishments, and an extension of sixty days for those matters regarding other offences. Despite having stated the mentioned provision the trials Courts and investigating agency kept the accused in remand for period more than that stipulated by law. Investigating agency stated that completing the investigation within given time was not possible so they kept on filing chargesheets so that the accused cannot avail his right of default bail. If such things go unchecked and unreviewed, it becomes a threat to the fundamental rights of the individuals as these authorities would exercise powers beyond their authorities to prove themselves right.
Inference:
This particular case highlighted the issue raised under the abovementioned provisions of the Act, where the investigating officers were continuously filing chargesheets without completing the investigations just to make sure that the remand period of the accused kept on getting extended so that he could not avail his right of default bail. Here the personal liberty of the accused under Article 21 provided by the Indian Constitution was brought into attention before the Hon’ble Court.
The Bench after listening to the contentions of both parties, then reviewing given facts and evidences further referring to various other judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein Right of default bail was in question, it came to a conclusion that when the investigation was pending the investigation body was filing chargesheets before the lapse of given period as per law, with an aim of declining of his rights. These facts were missed by the Trial Court due to which it kept on accepting the incomplete chargesheets and then further extending the custody term. As a result of which, the accused was deprived of his legal right. It was held that the investigating agency and the trial court were exercising excess powers, acting in an arbitrary manner and had violated the fundamentals rights of the accused.
The Bench stated that “the right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
At last, the Hon’ble bench passed an order of interim bail on the side of accused and finally leading to the disposal of the petition.
“On May 1, 2023, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the Chief Justice of India to stay the decision of the division bench in this case. The Solicitor General contended that the order passed in Ritu Chhabaria case is completely contrary to the decision given in the Dalmiya case. Then the Chief Justice of India issued an order stating that the courts should not entertain applications regarding right on default bail based on Ritu Chhabaria case. The decision of the earlier bench was stayed till May 4, 2023 then extended to May 12, 2023.
The Chief Justice of India (“CJI”) issued a new order to the Hon’ble Courts stating that they can consider default bail independently and his order dated May 1, 2023 will not prevent any Lower Courts and High Courts from considering default bail and they can consider it on their own. CJI said the case of Ritu Chhabaria should be relied upon while deciding other matters”.
Name: Omkar Dattaraj Shirwadkar
College: Kishinchand Chellaram Law College, Mumbai