By a majority vote of 2:1, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled in the case of rakesh kumar paul v state of assam that a sentence of up to ten years in prison would fall under section 167(a)(ii) of the Code for the purposes of default bail. In such a scenario, the accused would be eligible for release on bail if the charge sheet was not completed within sixty days.
Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam is a case that highlights how crucial it is for criminal investigations to follow procedural timetables. It reaffirms the idea that default bail is a crucial protection for the accused against extended incarceration in the absence of formal accusations. The decision underscores the necessity of prompt and effective police investigations as well as the judiciary’s role in defending individual liberty against capricious state action.
rakesh kumar paul v state of assam Case Facts
- According to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), if a person commits a crime that carries a minimum 10-year jail sentence, they may be detained for 90 days.
- Rakesh Kumar Paul, the petitioner, requested regular bail in accordance with section 439 of the crpc. The petitioner needed to finish his 90-day incarceration period; hence the court denied the bail request.
- Rakesh Kumar Paul was placed under arrest and imprisonment in accordance with the 1988 prevention of corruption act. The state contended that the petitioner was imprisoned for ninety days because the offense carries a minimum 10-year jail sentence.
- After his request for regular bail was denied, the petitioner filed a case with the Supreme Court.
rakesh kumar paul v state of assam Issues
- If the Gauhati High Court denied the petitioner’s motion for regular release on January 11, 2017, did he have the right to default bail from January 3 or 4?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- It was argued that ten years of imprisonment must be interpreted as “not less than” ten years.
- The charge sheet was supposed to be filed within 60 days, or until January 4, 2017, as the maximum sentence under Section 13(2) of the PC Act 1988 was seven years. However, since the chargesheet was not filed, the accused was eligible for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code.
- In the event that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 amends the Prevention of Corruption Act, the penalty under Section 13(2) as amended will be ten years, and in that scenario, the chargesheet also needs to be filed within sixty days.
- According to Section 167(2) of the Code, the Accused is entitled to be discharged if the Investigating Agency fails to file the chargesheet within 60 days. It was argued that a maximum sentence of seven years might be imposed for the offenses for which the chargesheet against the accused has been submitted.
Respondent:
- Citing Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh (2006) 6 SCC 277, the state argued in Rakesh Kumar Paul versus State of Assam that the appropriate punishment in a particular case will be determined by the facts as well as circumstances before the court.
- Using Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410 as support, it was claimed that the right to default bail is only enforceable up until the filing of a charge sheet or challan and does not survive after the filing of these documents.
- Between January 4, 2017, and January 24, 2017, the petitioner failed to file for default bail; as a result, his entitlement to default bail was terminated upon the submission of the charge sheet.
rakesh kumar paul v state of assam Judgment
- The question of whether the phrase “not less than” 10 years of imprisonment should imply a minimum of 10 years of imprisonment was discussed by the court in rakesh kumar paul v state of assam.
- The court recognized that, depending on the circumstances of the case, both the minimum and maximum punishment that are specified may not be achievable. In the event that an offense carries a jail sentence of up to, including, or greater than ten years, the time frame for concluding the inquiry would be ninety days prior to the application of the default bail provision.
- In the case of rakesh kumar paul v state of assam, the court emphasized the necessity of police reforms and the need to keep law and order and investigative work separate in order to guarantee that investigations are completed on time. This guarantees that individuals who are suspected of a crime they may not have committed are not unjustly deprived of their personal freedom by extended detention.
- In rakesh kumar paul v state of assam, the court reaffirmed that, in the event that the charge sheet is not filed within the allotted time, default bail is an indefeasible privilege that cannot be forfeited, revoked, or overturned.
- Rejected was the argument that the petitioner had to file for ordinary bail following the filing of the charge sheet and that the chapter on default bail had ended. The court’s attention was drawn to the time frame in which no charge sheet had been submitted, from January 4, 2017, to January 24, 2017.
- In rakesh kumar paul v state of assam, the Supreme Court ruled that default bail applies under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the CrPC when the sentence is up to ten years. In some situations, the accused may be released on bail if the charge sheet is not submitted within 60 days.
- It has long been known that charged individuals who are eligible for default bail continue to languish in detention despite receiving inadequate legal assistance. A strict observance of the Court’s views in Rakesh Kumar Paul can contribute to the cause. All of the courts that heard the case categorically rejected the petitioner’s attempt to interpret the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 to impose a maximum sentence of seven years.
rakesh kumar paul v state of assam: Ratio
- When a minimum and maximum sentence are specified, they can both be imposed based on the specific circumstances of the case. As a result, in the event that an offense carries a sentence of up to, including, or greater than ten years in prison, there will be ninety days to conclude the inquiry prior to the application of the “default bail” clause.
- The length of the investigation should, unsurprisingly, correspond to the seriousness of the offense.
- Police reforms are desperately needed, and there is agreement that investigations should be kept separate from law and order to ensure that they are completed quickly and that the accused is not unnecessarily deprived of their personal freedom by being held in custody for an extended period of time for a crime they may not have even committed.
- Default bail is an irreversible right, meaning it cannot be taken away, revoked, or overturned.
- The prosecution cannot thwart the right to “default bail” under any circumstances if the charge sheet is not submitted and it has matured to the point of being unchallengeable. The accused might request their release by submitting an application claiming that the charge sheet or challan was not filed within the prescribed time frame and that as a result, the indefeasible right has accrued in their favor.
- The Court rejected the argument that the Petitioner was not entitled to “default bail” because the charge sheet had been filed against him; instead, he had to apply for regular bail, since the “default bail” chapter had been closed. This was because the Court was focused on the period of time between January 4, 2017, and January 24, 2017, during which no charge sheet had been filed.
Given the circumstances and the facts of this case, the petitioner is deemed eligible to the issuance of “default bail.” The petitioner should be released by the trial judge on “default bail,” with any appropriate terms and conditions attached. We clarify, however, that this does not preclude or in any way restrict the petitioner’s arrest or re-arrest for the relevant charge on reasonable suspicion. The petitioner also retains the right to request regular bail upon arrest or re-arrest, and each application for bail should be evaluated separately. We further clarify that this will not affect the petitioner’s arrest in any other instance.”
The question of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC was taken up by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam. The petitioner requested bail after the investigating agency failed to file a charge sheet within 60 days after the petitioner’s arrest under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court decided that if the charge sheet is not filed within the allotted time, default bail is an indefeasible entitlement.
The state’s claim that once the charge sheet is filed, the right is forfeited was turned down. The court emphasized the significance of procedural safeguards in preserving individual liberty and the necessity of prompt investigations to prevent extended incarceration without charges.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
