LexACHPAL @ RAMSWAROOP & ANOTHER versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
327
ACHPAL @ RAMSWAROOP & ANOTHER
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT,
JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Investigation
not complete within the period prescribed under – Right of an
accused in custody, to be released on bail – FIR registered against
appellants-accused– Appellants arrested and remanded to police/
magisterial custody – Petition filed by the complainant praying for
fair and impartial investigation– High Court passed order dtd.
03.07.18 inter alia directing that investigation be conducted by a
gazetted police officer, not below the rank of Additional
Superintendent of Police (ASP)– On 05.07.18 charge-sheet filed
by the police officer lower in rank than ASP– Magistrate returned
the charge-sheet to the police for due compliance– Immediately after
the expiry of 90 days, the appellants filed application for bail u/
s.167(2) – Rejected– Held: In terms of s.167(2), the stage of
investigation ought to be confined to 90 or 60 days, as the case
may be– On the expiry of the period stipulated, an indefeasible
right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail
on account of default by the investigating agency in completion of
the investigation within the period stipulated – Since, the appellants
were in custody from 08.04.18, in terms of s.167(2) the investigation
had to be completed by 07.07.18 – However, in the present case, on
completion of 90 days of prescribed period, there were no papers
of investigation before the concerned Magistrate– Appellants were
thus denied protection established by law– Appellants entitled to
bail in terms of s.167(2).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Period under,
for investigation – If can be extended by the High Court – Held:
Provisions of the Code do not empower anyone to extend the period
within which the investigation must be completed nor does it admit
of any such eventuality.
[2018] 12 S.C.R. 327
327
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On the expiry of the period stipulated under
Section 167(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 an indefeasible
right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail
on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion
of the investigation within the period stipulated and the accused
is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes
the bail as directed by the Magistrate. [Para 11] [334-E-F]
1.2 The letter of and spirit behind enactment of Section
167 of the Code mandates that the investigation ought to be
completed within the period prescribed. Ideally, the investigation,
going by the provisions of the Code, ought to be completed within
first 24 hours itself. Further in terms of sub-section (1) of Section
167, if “it appears that the investigation cannot be completed
within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57” the
concerned officer ought to transmit the entries in the diary relating
to the case and at the same time forward the accused to such
Magistrate. Thereafter, it is for the Magistrate to consider
whether the accused be remanded to custody or not. Sub-Section
(2) then prescribes certain limitations on the exercise of the power
of the Magistrate and the proviso stipulates that the Magistrate
cannot authorize detention of the accused in custody for total
period exceeding 90 or 60 days, as the case may be. It is further
stipulated that on the expiry of such period of 90 and 60 days, as
the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail, if
he is prepared to and does furnish bail.[Para 16] [339-D-G]
1.3 The provision has a definite purpose in that; on the
basis of the material relating to investigation, the Magistrate ought
to be in a position to proceed with the matter. It is thus clearly
indicated that the stage of investigation ought to be confined to
90 or 60 days, as the case may be, and thereafter the issue relating
to the custody of the accused ought to be dealt with by the
Magistrate on the basis of the investigation. Matters and issues
relating to liberty and whether the person accused of a charge
ought to be confined or not, must be decided by the Magistrate
and not by the Police. Further custody of such person ought not
to be guided by mere suspicion that he may have committed an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
offenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.