Supreme Court Upholds Default Bail: Minimum Sentence Crucial for 90-Day Custody Limit.


03 April 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal of State (Nct) of Delhi v/s Rajeev Sharma., filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) challenging a Delhi High Court order that granted bail to an accused under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The core issue was whether the phrase "imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" in the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. applies to offenses where the maximum punishment is 14 years but no minimum sentence is prescribed.

The case originated from an FIR registered against the respondent for offenses under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was arrested on September 14, 2020. His initial bail applications were rejected by the lower courts. Subsequently, he filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., arguing that the 60-day period for filing the charge sheet had expired. This application was also dismissed, leading to a revision petition by the State. While the State's revision was pending, the respondent filed another default bail application, which was again rejected.


 

 
 
 

Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Delhi High Court, which allowed his revision petition and granted him bail. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court framed the central question as whether an offense with a maximum sentence of 14 years, but without a stipulated minimum, falls under the category of "imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" as mentioned in Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., which allows for a 90-day custody period before default bail becomes applicable. For "any other offence," the period is 60 days.

The Court referred to Section 167(2)(a) Cr.P.C., which grants an accused the right to default bail if the investigation is not completed within 90 days for offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment "not less than ten years," and within 60 days for other offenses.

In this case, while Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act prescribes a maximum punishment of 14 years, it does not specify a minimum sentence. The punishment under Section 5 of the same Act has a maximum of three years. Since the investigation was not completed within 60 days, the respondent claimed entitlement to default bail.

The Supreme Court found the case to be directly covered by the majority decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam. In that case, the Court held that the words "not less than" in Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. must be given their natural meaning, relating to offenses punishable with a minimum of 10 years' imprisonment. The Court clarified that while both minimum and maximum sentences are imposable, the "not less than" clause refers to a lower threshold set by the legislature.

The Supreme Court also noted that the principle in Rakesh Kumar Paul was followed in M. Ravindran vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

Based on this established legal precedent, the Supreme Court concluded that since the offense under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act did not prescribe a minimum sentence of 10 years, the 60-day period for default bail was applicable. The High Court, therefore, correctly followed these decisions in releasing the respondent on bail.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the appeal had been pending for four years and the respondent's bail had continued during this time. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it. However, it directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible.


Section 167., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Section 120B., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860