DATE: 03/04/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale
FACTS:
The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 363/2020, wherein the High Court granted bail to the respondent, subject to certain conditions. The background of the case involves the registration of FIR No. 230/2020 on 13.09.2020 at Police Station – Special Cell, Delhi, against the respondent under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. During the course of the investigation, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was also added. The respondent was arrested on 14.09.2020, and multiple bail applications filed thereafter were rejected by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala House Courts.
Subsequently, the respondent moved an application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on 14.11.2020 seeking statutory bail, contending that 60 days had passed since his arrest and the charge sheet had not been filed. This application was dismissed on the ground that the 60-day period had not yet lapsed, although the Magistrate acknowledged that statutory bail would apply once the 60-day threshold was crossed. Following this, the State (NCT of Delhi) filed a revision petition on 15.11.2020, while the respondent simultaneously filed a fresh application under Section 167(2), which was also dismissed on 16.11.2020. Aggrieved, the respondent moved the Delhi High Court, which allowed the Criminal Revision Petition and granted him bail. This order prompted the State to file the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case is over the impugned judgement dated 04/01/2020 which granted the respondent bail subject to certain condition. The appellant seeks to question the grant of bail through this case.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) and upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had granted default bail to the respondent-accused under Section 167(2)(a) of the Cr.P.C. The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the framing of charges and to conduct the trial expeditiously in accordance with law.
The core issue before the Court was whether an offence punishable with a maximum term of 14 years but without any minimum prescribed sentence falls within the ambit of the phrase “imprisonment for a term not less than ten years” under clause (i) of the proviso to Section 167(2)(a) Cr.P.C. The Court, referring to the three-judge bench decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, clarified that only those offences that carry a statutory minimum punishment of ten years or more fall under the 90-day extension period for filing a charge sheet. In contrast, if no minimum sentence is prescribed—despite the maximum being beyond ten years—the applicable period remains 60 days. Since the offence under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act prescribes a maximum sentence of 14 years without specifying a minimum, the 60-day limit for filing the charge sheet applied. As the charge sheet was not filed within that period, the respondent was entitled to default bail.
The Court further emphasized that this interpretation was consistent with the legislative intent and judicial precedents, particularly M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which affirmed the reasoning in Rakesh Kumar Paul. The Court noted that the words “not less than ten years” must be interpreted strictly and literally, as indicating a mandatory minimum threshold. Since the present offence did not fulfill this criterion, the High Court rightly applied the 60-day period under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) and granted default bail. The fact that the respondent had remained out on bail for nearly four years without any allegation of misuse of liberty also supported the decision not to interfere with the High Court’s order.
ANALYSIS:
The present appeal originates from the judgment dated 04.12.2020 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 363/2020, through which the High Court granted bail to the respondent, subject to certain conditions. The case pertains to FIR No. 230/2020 registered on 13.09.2020 at the Special Cell Police Station in Delhi, against the respondent under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. During the investigation, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was also added. The respondent was arrested on 14.09.2020, and his subsequent bail applications were rejected by both the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala House Courts.
On 14.11.2020, the respondent filed a bail application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., claiming statutory bail on the ground that 60 days had passed since his arrest and no charge sheet had been filed. This application was dismissed, with the Magistrate noting that the 60-day threshold was yet to expire. Nonetheless, the Magistrate observed that statutory bail would be applicable upon expiry of the 60-day period. The State filed a revision petition on 15.11.2020, while the respondent simultaneously filed a second bail application under the same provision, which was also dismissed on 16.11.2020. The respondent then approached the Delhi High Court, which allowed his Criminal Revision Petition and granted bail. This decision was challenged by the State before the Supreme Court, leading to the present appeal.
info@adhwaitha.com
