M. RAVINDRAN versus THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 915 · Decided: 26-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
M. RAVINDRAN
v.
THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF
REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
(Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2020)
OCTOBER 26, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 167(2) r/w s. 36A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 – Default bail/ Compulsive bail – Application
for – After completion of 180 days from the remand date – Bail
granted by trial court – High Court set aside the bail order on the
ground that since additional complaint was filed before disposal of
the bail application, bail could not have been granted – Appeal to
Supreme Court – Held: Section 167(2) was enacted with the
objectives of ensuring fair trial, expeditions investigation and trial
and reasonable procedure prior to depriving any person of his
personal liberty, which is intrinsically linked to Art. 21 of the
Constitution – Section 167(2) has to be interpreted keeping in mind
the aforesaid objectives – If the accused applies for bail u/s. 167(2)
r/w. s. 36 A (4) NDPS Act upon expiry of 180 days or the extended
period, Court has to release him on bail forthwith – Prosecution
cannot defeat enforcement of such right of accused by subsequently
filing a final report, additional complaint or report seeking extention
to time – However, actual release on bail is contingent upon the
directions passed by the competent court granting bail – In the
present case, accused was deemed to have availed the right to bail,
the moment he filed the application seeking bail and offered to abide
by the terms and conditions of the bail order – He was entitled to be
released on bail notwithstanding the subsequent additional
complaint – Constitution of India – Art. 21.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Interpretation of penal statutes – Held: In case of any
ambiguity in the construction of penal statute, courts must favour
[2020] 12 S.C.R. 915
915
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
the interpretation which leans towards protecting the right of the
accused – Such principle is applicable not only in the case of
substantive penal statute, but also in cases of procedures providing
for curtailment of liberty of the accused.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In common legal parlance, the right to bail under
the Proviso to Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. is commonly referred to
as ‘default bail’ or ‘compulsive bail’ as it is granted on account of
the default of the investigating agency in not completing the
investigation within the prescribed time, irrespective of the merits
of the case. [Para 6][929-A-B]
2. Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act (NDPS Act) prescribes modified application of
the CrPC as indicated therein. The effect of Sub-Clause (4) of
Section 36A NDPS Act is to require that investigation into certain
offences under the NDPS Act be completed within a period of
180 days instead of 90 days as provided under Section 167(2)
CrPC. Hence the benefit of additional time limit is given for
investigating a more serious category of offences. This is
augmented by a further Proviso that the Special Court may extend
time prescribed for investigation up to one year if the Public
Prosecutor submits a report indicating the progress of
investigation and giving specific reasons for requiring the
detention of accused beyond the prescribed period of 180 days.
In the present matter, it is admitted that the Public Prosecutor
had not filed any such report within the 180-day period for seeking
extension of time up to one year for filing final report/additional
complaint before the Trial Court. The final report was required
to be filed within 180 days from the first date of remand. [Para
6.2][929-E-H; 930-A]
3. While computing the period under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.,
the day on which accused was remanded to judicial custody has
to be excluded and the day on which challan/charge-sheet is filed
in the court has to be included. [Para 7][930-B]
Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar
(2015) 8 SCC 340 : [2015] 2 SCR 241 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
917
4. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that “no
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law”. Such a procedure
cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. The history of the
enactment of Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. and the safeguard of ‘default
bail’ contained in the Proviso thereto is intrinsically linked to
Art

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.