LexSTATE (NCT) OF DELHI versus RAJEEV SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 617 : 2025 INSC 456 State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma (Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2021) 03 April 2025 [Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the term imprisonment for a term “not less than 10 years” in clause (i) of the proviso (a) to s.167(2) Cr.P.C would include an offence where the punishment of 14 years of imprisonment is prescribed, but no minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed for such offence. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours – Statutory bail – Grant of – Bail applications filed by the respondent-accused against whom case registered u/ss.3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act and s.120-B IPC – Dismissal of the applications – Respondent then filed application u/s.167(2) seeking release on bail on the ground that 60 days period had expired since he was arrested, and the charge-sheet against him, was not filed – Application dismissed however, held that the statutory bail would have to be considered, if 60 days had elapsed since the day of the remand – Revision by the State – Pending Revision, the respondent filed a fresh petition u/s.167(2) which was also dismissed – Respondent then filed revision petition, which was allowed by the High Court and respondent was granted bail – Correctness: Held: As per clause(i) of the proviso (a) to s.167(2) the accused is entitled to the benefit of default bail if the investigation has not been completed in ninety days when it relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and in sixty days when it 618 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports relates to any other offence – Section 3 of the 1923 Act though, prescribes maximum punishment up to 14 years, there is no minimum punishment provided under the said provision and punishment for the offence punishable u/s. 5 is maximum up to three years – On facts, since, the investigation was not completed in sixty days, respondent had become entitled to the default bail u/s.167(2)(a) – High Court rightly released the respondent on bail – Official Secrets Act, 1923 – ss.3, 4, 5 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B. [Paras 6, 7, 10, 12] Case Law Cited Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam [2017] 8 SCR 785 : (2017) 15 SCC 67 – relied on. M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [2020] 12 SCR 915 – referred to. List of Acts Official Secrets Act, 1923; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Statutory bail; Default bail; No minimum period of imprisonment; Imprisonment for not less than 10 years; Detention exceeding 90 days; Detention exceeding 60 days. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2021 From the Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2020 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLRP No. 363 of 2020 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Annam Venkatesh. Advs. for the Respondent: Avi Singh, Sr. Adv., Shikhar Garg, Ajit Kumar Ekka. [2025] 4 S.C.R. 619 State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment 1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 363/2020 whereby, the High Court had disposed of the said petition by granting the respondent bail subject to the conditions mentioned therein. 2. The broad facts leading to the present Appeal are that, i. a case being FIR No.230/2020 came to be registered on 13.09.2020, at Police Station- Special Cell, Delhi against the Respondent - Accused for the offence punishable under Section 3,4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) and the investigation was taken up by the Special Cell, Delhi Police. ii. During the course of the investigation, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was also added. iii. The Respondent - Accused was arrested on 14.09.2020. iv. A Bail Application was filed by the Respondent, along with the other accused and the same came to be dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts vide the order dated 28.09.2020. The subsequent application seeking regular bail moved by the Respondent - Accused, was also dismissed by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.