SARAVANANversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                         [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1035                              1035


                            SARAVANAN                                      A
                                   v.
         STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               (Criminal Appeal Nos. 681-682 of 2020)
                         OCTOBER 15, 2020                                  B
       [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
                  M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167 – Condition
imposed to deposit a sum on default/statutory bail – Sustainability
                                                                           C
of – The High Court accepted the prayer of the appellant to release
him on the default bail/statutory bail u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C., however,
considering the earlier undertaking given by the wife of the appellant
in the Court of the Magistrate while considering bail application
u/s. 437 Cr. P.C. i.e. to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/-, while releasing the
appellant on default bail/statutory bail, the High Court imposed           D
the condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- before the Magistrate and was also directed to report
before the concerned police station daily at 10.00 a.m., until further
orders, for interrogation – On appeal, held: The High Court has
committed a grave error in imposing a condition that the appellant
                                                                           E
shall deposit a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant
on default bail/ statutory bail – The only requirement for getting the
default bail/statutory bail u/s. 167(2), Cr. P.C. is that the accused is
in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within
60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed
and no chargesheet is filed by 60 th or 90 th day and the accused          F
applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail – No other
condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed
– Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default
bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of
default bail u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. – Thus, the condition imposed by
                                                                           G
the High Court to deposit Rs. 8,00,000/-, while releasing the
appellant on default bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and is
quashed – Also, the condition imposed by the High Court, namely,
directing the appellant to report before the concerned police station
at 10.00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned,
                                                                           H
                                 1035
1036            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     the same is also unsustainable as it is too harsh – Instead, the
       appellant is directed to cooperate with the investigating officer in
       completing the investigation and to remain present before the
       concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when
       called for.
 B           Allowing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. The short question which is posed for the
       consideration of this Court is, whether while releasing the
       appellant-accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section
       167(2), Cr.P.C., any condition of deposit of amount as imposed
 C     by the High Court, could have been imposed? [Para 8][1041-E]
              2. Considering the scheme and the object and purpose of
       default bail/statutory bail, this Court is of the opinion that the
       High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition
       that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- while
 D     releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears
       that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking into
       consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the
       regular bail application, before the Magistrate, the wife of the
       appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-.
       However, as observed by this Court in catena of decisions and
 E     more particularly in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul, where the
       investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the
       case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day, accused
       gets an “indefeasible right” to default bail, and the accused
       becomes entitled to default bail once the accused applies for
 F     default bail and furnish bail. Therefore, the only requirement for
       getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.
       is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the
       case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the
       investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th
       or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared
 G     to furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount
       involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing
       the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very
       object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.
       [Para 9][1041-F-H; 1042-A-C]
 H
SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE 1037


       3. The circumstances while considering the regular bail        A
application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, while
considering the application for default bail/statutory bail. Under
the circumstances, the condition imposed by the High Court to
deposit Rs.8,00,000/-, while releasing the appellant on default
bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed
                                                                      B
and set aside. [Para 9.2][1042-F]
       4. Now so far as condition imposed by the High Court,
namely, directing the appellant to report before the concerned
police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for
interrogation is concerned, the same is also unsustainable, as it     C
is too harsh. Instead, condition which can be imposed is directing
the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer in
completing the investigation and to remain present before the
concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and
when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can
approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on breach   D
of such condition. [Para 10][1042-G-H; 1043-A]
      Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC
      67: [2017] 8 SCR 785 – referred to.
                      Case Law Reference                              E
[2017] 8 SCR 785                    referred to          Para 6
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 681-682 of 2020.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2020 of the Madurai     F
Bench of Madras High Court in CRL OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020 and
27.07.2020 in CRL MP(MD) No. 3622 of 2020 in CRL OP(MD) No.
6214 of 2020.
     Jayanth Muthuraj, Sr. Adv., Sriram P., B. Raghunath, M. Yogesh
                                                                      G
Kanna, Rajarajeswaran, Advs. for the appearing parties.




                                                                      H
1038             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              M. R. SHAH, J.
              1. Leave granted.
              2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated
 B     24.06.2020 in Criminal O.P.(MD) No. 6214 of 2020 and order dated
       27.07.2020 in Criminal M.P.(MD) No. 3622 of 2020 passed by the
       Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, by which the High Court has
       released the appellant on default bail/statutory bail, on condition to deposit
       Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the credit of crime No. 31 of
       2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil,
 C     Kanyakumari District, the original accused has preferred the present
       appeals.
              3. That the appellant herein was arrested and remanded to the
       judicial custody on 31.01.2020 for the offences punishable under Section
       420 of the IPC in Crime No.31 of 2019 on the file of the D.C.B. Police
 D     Station, Kanyakumari District. That the appellant herein filed an
       application before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking bail under
       Section 437 Cr.P.C. That the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit
       before the learned Magistrate and assured to pay Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees
       Seven Lakhs only) and the balance amount to be paid on or before
 E     06.04.2020, against the alleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/- (Rupees Fifteen
       lakhs Sixty Seven thousand Three hundred thirty eight only). Therefore,
       by order dated 3.2.2020, the learned Magistrate released the appellant
       on bail on the conditions stated in the said order. One of the conditions
       was directing the appellant to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- in the Court, and the
       balance amount of Rs. 8,67,338/- was directed to be deposited on or
 F     before 06.04.2020.
               4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with condition nos. 2 and 3
       of the order passed by the learned Magistrate releasing the appellant on
       bail, i.e, directing the appellant to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-, out of the total
       alleged amount of Rs.15,67,338/- and the balance to be deposited on or
 G     before 6.4.2020, the appellant approached the High Court by way of
       Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020. The High Court dismissed the said
       application with liberty to the appellant to approach the Magistrate Court
       for any modification and observed that if any modification is required,
       the same may be considered by the Magistrate. That thereafter, the
       appellant filed an application before the learned Sessions Court being
 H
SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE 1039
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Criminal M.P. No. 1695/2020 to release the appellant on default bail/          A
statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. It was the case on behalf of
the appellant that he was arrested and remanded on 31.01.2020 and he
is inside the jail for more than 101 days and the investigation is not
completed and the police has not filed the final report within the period
provided under Section 167 Cr.P.C. The said application came to be
                                                                               B
dismissed by the learned Sessions Court on the ground that earlier when
the appellant applied for regular bail and which was allowed on condition
to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- in the Court and the same has not been complied
with, and despite the liberty reserved by the High Court to approach the
Magistrate Court for modification of the conditions, instead of doing so,
the appellant has filed an application for default bail/statutory bail under   C
Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, the learned Sessions Court dismissed
the said application.
        5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court
and prayed to release the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It was
the case on behalf of the appellant that non-deposit of any amount which       D
was required to be deposited pursuant to the order passed by the learned
Magistrate, imposed while releasing the appellant on regular bail under
Section 437, Cr.P.C., shall not come in the way of the appellant-accused
in getting default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. It was
submitted that the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.
is mandatory bail, provided the conditions in Section 167 Cr.P.C. are          E
satisfied, i.e., investigation is not completed and the chargesheet/report
is not filed by the investigating agency within the time stipulated under
Section 167 Cr.P.C. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and
order dated 24.06.2020 accepted the same, however, considering the
earlier undertaking given by the wife of the appellant in the Court of the     F
learned Magistrate while considering the regular bail application under
Section 437, Cr.P.C., i.e., to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-, while releasing the
appellant on default bail/statutory bail, the High Court has imposed the
condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- before
the learned Magistrate. That thereafter, the appellant preferred application
being Criminal MP(MD) No. 3622 of 2020 before the High Court to                G
modify condition nos. (b) and (d) in Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214/2020
by which the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- before the
learned Judicial Magistrate and the appellant was directed to report before
the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for
interrogation. By the impugned order dated 27.07.2020, the High Court          H
1040             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     has dismissed the said application for modification observing that earlier
       wife of the appellant filed affidavit before the learned Magistrate to
       deposit Rs.7,00,000/- and the alleged amount is Rs.32,23,073/-, condition
       nos. (b) and (d) in order dated 24.06.2020 in Criminal OP(MD) No.
       6214/2020 are not required to be modified. Hence, the present appeals.
 B             6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
       vehemently submitted that condition nos. (b) and (d) imposed by the
       High Court imposed while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory
       bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C is contrary to the scheme of Section
       167 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as observed by this Court in catena
       of decisions, the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure delineates that
 C     provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C. give due regard to the personal liberty
       of a person. Without submission of charge sheet within 60 days or 90
       days, as may be applicable, an accused cannot be detained by the Police.
       The provision gives due recognition to the personal liberty. It is submitted
       that as held by this Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam,
 D     (2017) 15 SCC 67, where investigation is not completed within 60 days
       or 90 days, as the case may be, no chargesheet is filed on the 60th or 90th
       day, accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail,
       accused becomes entitled to default bail, it cannot be frustrated either
       by the prosecution or the Court. It is submitted that it is further held that
       accused need not make out any grounds for grant of default bail but only
 E     needs to state that 60/90 days, as the case may be, have expired,
       chargesheet not filed, he is entitled to bail and willing to furnish the same.
       It is submitted that therefore condition nos. (b) and (d) imposed by the
       High Court while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail are
       against the scheme of Section 167, Cr. P.C.
 F            6.1 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
       the appellant that affidavit filed by the wife of the appellant before the
       learned Magistrate to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- and the earlier order passed
       by the learned Magistrate to release the appellant on deposit of Rs.15,
       67,338/- was with respect to regular bail under Section 437, Cr.P.C. and
 G     the same shall not come in the way of the appellant in getting the default
       bail/statutory bail, if a case is made out under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. It
       is submitted that, as such, and in fact the High Court has accepted the
       same and has released the appellant on default bail/statutory bail, however,
       with condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- on the ground that while considering
       the regular bail application under Section 437, Cr.P.C., the wife of the
 H
SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE 1041
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

appellant agreed to and filed affidavit to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. It is          A
submitted that condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- while releasing the
appellant on default bail/statutory bail on the aforesaid ground would
defeat the very purpose of grant of default bail/statutory bail. It is
submitted that while considering the default bail/statutory bail, the only
thing which is required to be considered and the statutory requirement is
                                                                                 B
that the statutory period for filing the chargesheet or challan has expired
and the accused is prepared to furnish the bail.
      6.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeals and delete condition nos. (b) and (d) of order dated 24.06.2020
passed by the High Court in Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020.
                                                                                 C
       7. Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State has tried to support the impugned
order(s) passed by the High Court by submitting that as earlier the wife
of the appellant filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate to deposit
Rs.7,00,000/- and the alleged amount was Rs.15,67,338/-, probably the
High Court has imposed condition no. (b) directing the appellant to deposit      D
Rs.8,00,000/-.
       8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
       The short question which is posed for the consideration of this           E
Court is, whether while releasing the appellant-accused on default bail/
statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., any condition of deposit of
amount as imposed by the High Court, could have been imposed?
        9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and considering the scheme and the object and purpose of default bail/           F
statutory bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a
grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum
of Rs.8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory
bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking
into consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular
bail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellant       G
filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. However, as observed
by this Court in catena of decisions and more particularly in the case of
Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), where the investigation is not completed
within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is
filed by 60th or 90th day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default
                                                                                 H
1042             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 8 S.C.R.


 A     bail, and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused
       applies for default bail and furnish bail. Therefore, the only requirement
       for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is
       that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may
       be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not
       completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused
 B
       applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition
       of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing
       such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail
       would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section
       167(2), Cr.P.C. As observed by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar
 C     Paul (supra) and in other decisions, the accused is entitled to default
       bail/statutory bail, subject to the eventuality occurring in Section 167,
       Cr.P.C., namely, investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days,
       as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and
       the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail.
 D           9.1 As observed hereinabove and even from the impugned orders
       passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court while releasing
       the appellant on default bail/statutory bail has imposed the condition to
       deposit Rs.8,00,000/- taking into consideration that earlier before the
       learned Magistrate and while considering the regular bail application
       under Section 437 Cr.P.C., the wife of the accused filed an affidavit to
 E     deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. That cannot be a ground to impose the condition
       to deposit the amount involved, while granting default bail/statutory bail.
              9.2. The circumstances while considering the regular bail
       application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, while considering
       the application for default bail/statutory bail. Under the circumstances,
 F     the condition imposed by the High Court to deposit Rs.8,00,000/-, while
       releasing the appellant on default bail/ statutory bail is unsustainable and
       deserves to be quashed and set aside.
              10. Now so far as condition no. (d) imposed by the High Court,
       namely, directing the appellant to report before the concerned police
 G     station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is
       concerned, the same is also unsustainable, as it is too harsh. Instead,
       condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate
       with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain
       present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation
 H     as and when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can
SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE 1043
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on breach of            A
such condition.
        11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeals succeed. Condition No. (b) of order dated 24.06.2020
passed by the High Court in Criminal OP(MD) No. 6214 of 2020, i.e.,
directing the appellant to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- to the credit of crime No.       B
31 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District, while releasing the appellant on default bail, is
hereby quashed and set aside. Condition no. (d), namely, directing the
appellant to report before the concerned police station at 10:00 a.m.
daily, until further orders for interrogation is hereby modified to the extent
and it is directed that the appellant shall co-operate with the investigating     C
agency and shall report the concerned police station as and when called
for investigation/interrogation and on non-cooperation, the consequences
including cancellation of the bail shall follow. Rest of the conditions
imposed by the High Court in order dated 24.06.2020 are maintained.
       13. The appeals are allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms.            D


Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeals allowed.


                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H