If accused fails to furnish bail and/or comply with T&Cs of bail order within time stipulated by Court, then his right u/s 167(2) CrPC will stand extinguished: P&H HC

Read Order: Jatinder Singh @ Happy v. The State Of Punjab

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 8, 2022: In order to extinguish the right accrued in favour of an accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the accused must fail to furnish bail and/or comply with the terms and conditions of the bail order within the time stipulated by the Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held. 

While addressing the question as to whether the right of an accused to be released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. would stand extinguished merely on account of failure of the accused to furnish the bail bonds, the Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj made the above stated observation in light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Direcotrate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485.

The factual matrix of the case was such that an FIR was registered against the accused- petitioner under Sections 15 and 22 of the NDPS Act as he was allegedly found in possession of contraband. The period of 180 days for completing the investigation expired on November 15, 2021 and the petitioner filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. the next day, which was allowed by the Trial Court on the same day. 

Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to furnish his bail bonds and in the meanwhile, on November 17, 2021 the prosecution moved an application stating that the charge sheet was presented and thus, the petitioner could not be released on default bail. The prosecution’s application was allowed while the petitioner’s application for furnishing the bail bonds was declined. 

This application was allowed and the application of the petitioner for furnishing the bail bonds was declined. Hence, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court, impugning this order of the Trial Court.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that once the petitioner was directed to be released on default bail on non-completion of the investigation within the stipulated period; the valuable right of an under-trial could not be defeated on hypertechnical ground of non-submitting the bail bonds. To support his case, he relied upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Amit Chawla v. State of Haryana, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 248. 

While taking into consideration the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the Court opined that the statute prescribes a mandatory period for completion of investigation where an accused is in custody and failure to conclude the investigation entails rights in favour of an accused person to be released on bail in case he is prepared to and does furnish bail.

Coming to the factual aspects of this case, the Court observed after perusing the impugned order that the petitioner submitted an application for seeking bail, thus reflecting his willingness to secure bail on the terms as may be so prescribed. Further, it was observed that considering the said circumstances, the petitioner was admitted to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. subject to furnishing bail bonds for the sum of Rs 1 lakh with one surety in the like amount.  

Further, the Court also noted that the Trial Court, while dismissing the application for acceptance of bail bonds filed by the petitioner, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra 2001 (2) RCR (Criminal) 452 to hold that if the accused is unable to furnish bail, as directed by the Magistrate, the continued custody of the accused beyond the specified period will not be unauthorized, and, therefore, if during that period the investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed then the so-called indefeasible right of the accused would stand extinguished. 

Thus, after taking into account the submissions of petitioner’s counsel, the precedents cited and the contents of the impugned order, the Court was of the opinion that it was evident from the order passed by the lower Court that no time frame for submission of bail bonds was prescribed by the Court while extending the concession of default bail. 

Resultantly, according to the Court, it could not be construed that the petitioner committed a breach or was in default of any of the terms and conditions prescribed in the order granting bail, the Court concluded. 

“Thus, it cannot be deemed that the indefeasible right to claim default bail by the accused stands extinguished in the instant case”, adjudged the Bench. 

Thus, allowing the revision petition, the Court set aside the impugned order to set the petitioner at liberty.