{"id":384,"date":"2023-04-26T13:14:20","date_gmt":"2023-04-26T07:44:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=384"},"modified":"2023-05-15T15:26:05","modified_gmt":"2023-05-15T09:56:05","slug":"cr-p-c-accused-cannot-claim-the-benefit-of-default-bail-when-neither-the-first-nor-the-second-extension-of-investigation-was-challenged-by-him","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/cr-p-c-accused-cannot-claim-the-benefit-of-default-bail-when-neither-the-first-nor-the-second-extension-of-investigation-was-challenged-by-him\/","title":{"rendered":"Cr. P.C.-\u2018Accused cannot claim the benefit of default bail, when neither the first nor the second extension of investigation was challenged by him\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Qamar Ghani Usmani<\/strong> [Appellant(s)] Vs. The State of Gujarat<\/strong> [Respondent(s)]<\/p>\n

(CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1045\u00ac1046\/2023 SLP (CRL) NOS. 011196 \u00ac 011197 \/ 2022)<\/strong>
\n(2JB, M.R. SHAH and C.T. RAVIKUMAR JJ., delivered by M.R. Shah J.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts:<\/strong> Appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 3.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal AppealNos. 1215\/2022 and 1216\/2022, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has refused to release the appellant- accused on statutory bail (default bail) under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/strong> Whether the accused shall be entitled to the statutory\/default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC on the ground that at the time when the extension of time for completing the investigation was prayed by the investigating agency and granted by the Trial Court the accused was not kept present?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of appellant:<\/strong> Shri Mehmood Pracha,He submitted that the judgment and order which has been relied upon by the Division Bench of the High Court has been subsequently set aside by this Court in the case of Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat (2022). It is further submitted that it is admitted by the prosecution that the appellant was not produced before the learned Trial Court at the time of consideration of application for first extension of period of investigation, which is held to be mandatory in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1994) and in the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through CBI, Bombay (1994). Therefore, thereafter when the accused filed the application(s) under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC for default bail\/statutory bail, the accused had acquired a indefeasible right for release on statutory bail by the time 90 days period was over. It is reiterated by the court has specifically that failure to produce the accused at the time of extension of period of investigation renders such extension bad in law and entitles the accused to statutory bail.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of respondent:<\/strong> Shri Tushar Mehta, He submitted that decision of this Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur has been subsequently watered down by this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt.It is held that only requirement is the production of the accused before the Court in accordance with Section 167(1) of the Cr.PC and that the accused is not entitled to written notice giving reasons for the extension. He relied on the decision of Rambeer Shokeen Vs. State (2018) in which it was categorically held that the accused persons are entitled to the right of the default bail only after rejection of the application for extension of time period for investigation or when the chargesheet is not filed within the prescribed time. He also relied on the case of Narender G. Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) which held that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation or extension of investigation. He also submitted that once the accused failed to challenge the first order of extension dated 22.04.2022 on whatever grounds available and allowed the period of extension and thereafter at the time when the second extension was granted the accused was present and he did not make any grievance with respect to the first extension granted on 22.04.2022, thereafter, it is not open for the accused to make any grievance on the grant of first extension granted on 22.04.2022. Therefore, the application(s) for default\/statutory bail during the period of extension would not be maintainable at all as the said application(s) were made during the period of extension for investigation.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/strong> The court, while dismissing the above appeal, held that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of statutory\/default When First Extension which was Passed In Absence Of Accused Wasn’t Challenged & Second Extension Was Passed In His Presence. However it will be open for the accused to prayer for regular bail which may be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Qamar Ghani Usmani [Appellant(s)] Vs. The State of Gujarat [Respondent(s)] (CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1045\u00ac1046\/2023 SLP (CRL) NOS. 011196 \u00ac 011197 \/ 2022) (2JB, M.R. SHAH and C.T. RAVIKUMAR JJ., delivered by M.R. Shah J.) Facts: Appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 3.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":436,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=384"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":402,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384\/revisions\/402"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}