When does the right to default bail accrue and extinguish? Supreme Court answers

In a judgment delivered on Monday, the Supreme Court explained in detail as to when the "indefeasible right to default bail" of an accused accrues, till when it remains enforceable, and when it finally extinguishes (M Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence)..While adjudicating on a question concerning the validity of a default bail application of a person charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), a three judge Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran delved into the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), explaining the law on the subject of default bail..The judgment explains the circumstances under which the right to default may be claimed by accused persons, to remove any doubt on the question which essentially stands answered in the precedent laid down in the Uday Mohanlal Acharya case. .The right to default bail provided in the proviso to Section 167(2) of the CrPC is "intrinsically linked to Article 21", the Court held. This provision of the law is "nothing but a legislative exposition of the constitutional safeguard that no person shall be detained except in accordance with rule of law," the judgment adds. Therefore, the courts cannot adopt a rigid approach on any issue that touches upon Article 21 rights. .In the instant case, the appellant before the Court was granted default bail by the trial court but the same was set aside by the Madras High Court on the ground that the prosecution had filed an additional complaint before the bail application could be disposed of. This ruling of the High Court gave rise to the questions of when the right to default bail gets accrued and extinguished.On appeal, the Supreme Court was posed with the question of which time must be taken into consideration by the courts while considering default bail applications - the time of filing of the plea or the time of its disposal..When does the right accrue?The Court held that as soon as an accused files an application for default bail and is ready to pay surety under proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC, he is deemed to have availed of the right. This right to default bail accrues once the stipulated statutory period set out under Section 167(2) lapses. Once such an application is made, the Court must release the accused forthwith.The Court also added, "such prompt action will restrict the prosecution from frustrating the legislative mandate to release the accused on bail in case of default by the investigative agency.".The Court also had occasion to interpret the phrase "if not already availed of” with respect to the right to default bail. The Court clarified that this term cannot be interpreted to mean the duration till the release of the accused or the actual furnishing of the bail bond or surety. This principle was held by the Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench decision in the case of Sanjay Dutt and "merely casts a positive corresponding obligation upon the accused to promptly apply for default bail as soon as the prescribed period of investigation expires.".The legal provision also provides for "an in built safeguard" since a Court cannot suo motu grant bail on expiry of period of investigation. The accused has to apply for it and express willingness to abide by the terms of bail, the Court further explains..Till when is the right enforceable and when does it extinguish?This indefeasible right remains enforceable once the accused has applied for it. Pendency of this bail application or a subsequent filing of the chargesheet et al will not have any bearing on this right once an application for it has been made.Therefore, an accused cannot be denied default bail on account of delay in deciding on his application, nor can he be kept in continued detention thereafter "on account of subterfuge of the prosecution in filing a police report or additional complaint on the same day that the bail application is filed.".The Court also observed that adjournment of the hearing of a default bail plea deliberately would be in violation of the legislative mandate. It said,."If the Court deliberately does not decide the bail application but adjourns the case by granting time to the prosecution, it would be in violation of the legislative mandate.".However, this right to default bail would stand extinguished if and when the accused person has not moved the court seeking default bail, and the prosecution moves the court with a plea for extension of custody or if it files the chargesheet, the Bench clarified.In this event, it is at the concerned court's discretion to grant regular bail to the accused or the allow prosecution's plea, as the case may be..In the instant case, the Court found that the application for default bail was made at the first available time after the statutory period of custody, and as such, the pendency of this bail plea would not be the basis for denying default bail to the accused appellant merely because a subsequent second complaint was filed by the prosecution during the pendency of the bail plea.Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's ruling and affirmed the trial court's order of granting bail subject to certain conditions and sureties to be adhered to and furnished by the accused..Read Judgment: