Whether Day Of Remand Is To Be Included For Considering A Claim For Default Bail? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Whether the day of remand is to be included or excluded, for considering a claim for default bail ? The Supreme Court referred this issue to a larger bench.

The Court was considering the appeal filed against the Bombay High Court judgment which held that the day of remand has to be included for the purpose of computing the period of 90 days or 60 days as contemplated in Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bombay High Court had observed thus while granting  bail to DHFL promoters Kapil Wadhwan and Dheeraj Wadhwan in the Enforcement Directorate's case of money laundering registered against them as the agency failed to file a chargesheet within 60 days from the date of remand. 

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy noticed that, in State of M.P. Vs. Rustom & Ors.1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 221 , Ravi Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2015) 8 SCC 340 and M. Ravindran Vs. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence,  it was held that the date of remand is to be excluded for computing the permitted period for completion of investigation. On the other hand, the judgments in Chaganti Satyanarayan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 3 SCC 141 , CBI Vs. Anupam J Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141 , State Vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat (1996) 1 SCC 432 , State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharati Chandmal Varma (2002) 2 SCC 121, and Pragyna Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 10 SCC 445, have held that the date of remand must be included for computing the available period for investigation for determining entitlement to default bail.

It noticed that the ratio in Chaganti and also in Mhd. Ashraft Bhat  was not brought to the notice of the 3 judges bench in M Ravindran and the Court took a contrary view in declaring that the date of remand is to be excluded for computing the period of investigation, to facilitate the claim of default bail by an accused.

"Since the earlier position of law was not considered and the latest decision is of a 3 judges bench, it is necessary for a bench of appropriate strength to settle the law taking note of the earlier precedents. Unless the issue is appropriately determined, the courts across the country may take decision on the issue depending upon which judgment is brought to the Court's notice or on the Courts own understanding of the law, covering default bail under Section 167 (2)(a) II of CrPC", the bench observed.

The bench therefore directed the Registry to place all the relevant documents before the Chief Justice for constituting a bench of at least 3 judges to resolve the conflict in law. "We feel it appropriate to refer the above-mentioned issue to a larger Bench of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement to quell this conflict of views as the same shall enable the Courts to apply the law uniformly.", it added.

CASE: ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE vs. KAPIL WADHAWAN [CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 701-702 OF 2020]
CORAM: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy
CITATION: LL 2021 SC 118

Click here to Read/Download Order