Can condition to deposit money be imposed while releasing an accused on default/statutory bail? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on Thursday said that when an accused is being granted default or statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a condition cannot be imposed on him for deposit of money..The provision under Section 167(2) of the CrPC envisages the grant of default or statutory bail to an accused in the event that investigation is not completed and a charge-sheet filed within the prescribed time period. Bail under this provision is different from applications for regular bail under Section 437 of the Code, the Court observed..The Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah was considering a petition against the decision of the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench where an accused was directed to deposit a sum of Rs 8 lakhs as a condition for granting default bail..Setting aside this order of the High Court, the Court noted that it is a well-established principle laid down in a catena of judgments that after the completion of the statutory period of 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, if a chargesheet is not filed against an accused then they have an “indefeasible right” to default bail..In such an event, "the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused applies for default bail," the Court observed..The only requirement for granting default bail is that the accused is under incarceration and the investigation is not complete nor the charge sheet filed within the stipulated statutory period. Imposing any other condition while granting default bail, which is a matter of right, would be unsustainable, the Court said. ."Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.," reads the judgment..Another condition imposed on the accused by the High Court was for the accused to report before the concerned Police station daily. This too was "unsustainable" and "too harsh", the apex Court said, which proceeded to ask the accused to cooperate in the investigation and present himself before the concerned Police station as and when required instead..Additional Advocate General Jayanth Muthuraj represented the State of Tamil Nadu while Advocates B Raghunath and Sriram Parakkat argued for the appellant..Read Judgment: