Default Bail Held Available Where Statute Prescribes Only Maximum Term; Appeal Dismissed

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale heard the appeal by the State (NCT) of Delhi challenging the Delhi High Court’s order granting default bail to an accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The question before the Supreme Court concerned the interpretation of the phrase "imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" in proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) and whether an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years but no prescribed minimum fell within that description.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s grant of default bail. The Court held that the words “not less than” in clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) must be given their natural meaning and relate to an offence for which a minimum sentence of ten years is prescribed. The Court noted that "the accused would be entitled 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 relates to any other offence." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “25. While it is true that merely because a minimum sentence is provided for in the statute it does not mean that only the minimum sentence is imposable. Equally, there is also nothing to suggest that only the maximum sentence is imposable. Either punishment can be imposed and even something in between. Where does one strike a balance? It was held that it is eventually for the court to decide what sentence should be imposed given the range available. Undoubtedly, the legislature can bind the sentencing court by laying down the minimum sentence (not less than) and it can also lay down the maximum sentence. If the minimum is laid down, the sentencing Judge has no option but to give a sentence “not less than” that sentence provided for. Therefore, the words “not less than” occurring in clause (i) to proviso (a) of Section 167(2) CrPC (and in other provisions) must be given their natural and obvious meaning, which is to say, not below a minimum threshold and in the case of Section 167 CrPC these words must relate to an offence punishable with a minimum of 10 years' imprisonment.”

Background

The criminal appeal arose from FIR No. 230/2020 registered on September 13, 2020 at the Special Cell, Delhi, against the respondent for offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with Section 120B IPC. The respondent was arrested on September 14, 2020. Initial bail applications were dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and subsequent applications were declined by the Additional Sessions Judge. The accused moved applications under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. claiming statutory bail after expiry of the prescribed period; these applications were dismissed by the trial courts but the Delhi High Court allowed Criminal Revision Petition No. 363/2020 and granted default bail subject to conditions. The State appealed.

The principal legal issue was whether an offence punishable with imprisonment “up to 14 years” but without any minimum term qualified as an offence “punishable with ... imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years” for the purpose of extending the period for completion of investigation under proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2). The Court relied on the three-judge Bench decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam and subsequent authority in M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, and held that the statutory phrase required a minimum prescribed sentence of ten years; where only a maximum was prescribed, the offence fell under the sixty-day category. The Court observed that the respondent was therefore entitled to default bail and noted that the High Court had rightly followed the precedent. The appeal was dismissed. The Court directed the trial court to proceed with trial expeditiously; the grant of default bail continued and pending applications stood closed.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2021 Case Title: State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment text For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment text