LexRAKESH KUMAR PAUL versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 785 RAKESH KUMAR PAUL A v. STATE OF ASSAM (Special Leave to Appeal (Cr!.) No. 2009 of 2017) AUGUST 16,2017 B [MADAN B. LOKUR, PRAFULLA C. PANT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: , Cl.(i) of proviso (a) to s.167(2) - Interpretation of words C "imprisonment for a term not less than ten years" - Petitioner arrested for an offence, inter alia, uls. 13(1) of the PC Act, 1988 - Offence uls. 13(1) of the PC Act punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than four years but may extend to ten years - After ,expiry of 60 days of detention, bail application filed by the D petitioner before High Court which was rejected on ground that he could be detained for 90 days - State contended that the petitioner could be kept in custody for a period of 90 days in terms of cl.(i) of proviso (a) to s.167(2) as offences committed by petitioner could result in "imprisonment for a term not less than ten years" - Whether the Petitioner-accused entitled to grant of bail in terms of s.167 (2) E of the Cr.P.C. as the investigating agency did not file charge-sheet within 60 days - Held: Yes .:._Per Mada11 B. Lokur, J.: The words "not less than" in cl(i) would mean that the imprisonment should be 10 years or more and would cover only those offences for which punishment of imprisonment could be for a clear period of 10 years F or more - If minimum sentencing is laid down by the Legislature, then the sentencing judge has no option but to give a sentence "not less than" that sentence provided for -; Therefore, the words "not less than" occurring in cl(i) to proviso (a) of s.167(2) of the code (and in other provisions) must be given their natural and obvious meaning which is to say, not below a minimum threshold and in G case of s.167 of the code these words must relate to an offence punishable with a minimum of JO years imprisonment~ In instant case, alleged offence against the petitioner was not punishable with imprisonment for a minimum period of ten years - Thus, petitioner had indefeasible right to the grant of 'default bail' after expiry of H 785 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S. C.R. A sixty days of detention - Per Deepak Gupta, J, (concurring): The words used by the Legislature are "not less than ten years", this means that the punishment should be 10 years or more - This can- not include offences where the maximum punishment is JO years - It obviously means that minimum punishment is JO years whatever B be the maximum punishment - There is no ambiguity in the wording of s.167(2) of the code - Per Prafu/la C. Pant, J. (dissenting) : The intention of the Legislature was that if an offence was punishable with imprisonment upto ten years, then it falls within the provision of s. l 67(2)(a)(i) of the code, and permissible period for investigation is 90 days - Though the expression "not less than ten C years" used ins. J 67(2)(a)(i) of the code has created some ambiguity, the real intention of the legislature seems to include all such offences wherein an imprisonment which may extend to ten years is an award- a bl e sentence - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7, J 3(l)(a)(b)(d) and 13(2) (as amended by the Lokpal and Lokayukta D Act, 2013). Default Bail - After expiry of sixty days of detention ulcl.(i) of proviso (a) to s.167(2) - Petitioner was arrested ulss. 7, 13(l)(a)(b)(d} of the PC Act, 1988, which is punishable with imprisonment for a period ranging from 4 to JO years - After expiry of 60 days of detention, bail application filed by the petitioner E before High Court was for regular bail and not for 'default bail' ul s.167(2), however, oral arguments made before the High Court were predominantly based on u/s.167(2) - Whether petitioner entitled to default bail uls.167(2) - Held: Per Madan B. Lokur, J.: Jn instant case, an alleged offence against the petitioner was not punishable F with imprisonment for a minimum period of ten years - Petitioner had orally applied for 'default bail', under these circumstances the only course open to High Court was to enquire whether petitioner was prepared to furnish bail and if so then grant him 'default bail' on reasonable conditions - Per Deepak Gupta, J.(concurring): Admittedly, there is no plea for 'default bail' in bail application, but G High Court permitted arguments on the ground of grant of 'default bail' and no objection was raised by the counsel for the State - if
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.