RAMBEER SHOKEEN versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 31-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
373
RAMBEER SHOKEEN
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2181-2182 of  2017)
JANUARY 31, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Maharashtra
Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 – ss.3 and 4 – Arrest of
appellant-accused on 01.12.2016 – Before the expiry of 90 days
period, application filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor on
28.02.2017 for extension of time to file charge-sheet upto
15.03.2017 – Special judge by order dated 28.02.2017 extended
judicial custody of the appellant until 01.03.2017 – On the same
day accused filed application for grant of statutory bail but the
same was not pursued – On the next day 02.03.2017, after the expiry
of 90 days period, appellant filed another application for grant of
statutory bail – Judicial custody kept on extending from time to time
until 08.03.2017 on which date charge sheet was filed and the
Special court disposed of the Public Prosecutor’s application as
infructuous – Thereafter, on 14.03.2017 Special Judge rejected the
bail application dated 02.03.2017 – Challenge to, before the High
Court – High Court rejected the prayer of the appellant to be
released on bail by default – On appeal, held: No right can be said
to have accrued to the appellant for grant of bail on the ground of
default – Right to grant of statutory bail would have enured to the
appellant only after rejection of the request for extension of time
prayed by the Additional Public Prosecutor – Mere fact that 90
days period from the date of initial arrest of the appellant had lapsed
on 02.03.2017, could not ineluctably entail in grant of statutory
bail to the appellant – Moreso, when no decision was taken by the
Court on the application submitted by the Additional Public
Prosecutor until 08.03.2017, on which date the supplementary
charge-sheet against the appellant was filed in Court – Considering
the effect of filing of the supplementary charge-sheet against the
appellant, coupled with the fact that his judicial custody was
extended until the pendency of consideration of the application for
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 373
373
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
extension of time to file the charge-sheet, in law, it is unfathomable
as to how the appellant could claim to have any accrued right to be
released on bail on the ground of default or for that matter, such a
right having become indefeasible – No right had accrued to the
appellant before filing of the charge-sheet; at best, it was an inchoate
right until 8.03.2017 – Granting statutory bail after filing of charge-
sheet against the appellant and more so during the pendency of the
application for extension of time to file charge-sheet was
impermissible – Thus, the High Court rightly rejected the prayer
for grant of statutory bail by the appellant.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On 28.02.2017, the Additional Public Prosecutor
had filed report for extension of time to file charge-sheet against
the appellant until 15.03.2017. The same was filed within time,
before the expiry of 90 days from the date of initial arrest of the
appellant in connection with the subject FIR. Realising this
position, the appellant did not pursue his first application for
statutory bail dated 28.02.2017. Instead, he was advised to file a
fresh statutory bail application on 02.03.2017. On 02.03.2017 the
report submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor was still
undecided. Therefore, no right can be said to have accrued to
the appellant for grant of bail on the ground of default. In law,
only upon rejection of the prayer for extension of time sought by
the Additional Public Prosecutor, right in favour of the appellant
for grant of statutory bail could have ignited. The mere fact that
90 days period from the date of initial arrest of the appellant in
connection with the subject FIR had lapsed on 02.03.2017, could
not ineluctably entail in grant of statutory bail to the appellant.
Moreso, when no decision was taken by the Court on the report/
application submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor until
08.03.2017, on which date the supplementary charge-sheet against
the appellant was filed in Court. Considering the effect of filing of
the supplementary charge-sheet against the appellant, coupled
with the fact that his judicial custody was extended by the Court
of competent jurisdiction until the pendency of consideration of
the application for extens

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