Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused, Rules No Extension of Investigation Period Without Statutory Backing

In Achpal @ Ramswaroop v. State of Rajasthan, SC reiterates strict 90-day investigation limit under CrPC Section 167(2), invalidates High Court’s informal extension, and underscores accused’s right to default bail.

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment dated September 24, 2018, has firmly upheld the statutory limit on the duration of police investigation under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and granted bail to accused persons in the case Achpal @ Ramswaroop v. State of Rajasthan. The Court held that neither the investigating agency nor any court can extend the 90-day period for completing investigation unless expressly empowered by a statute, rejecting the Rajasthan High Court’s order which was construed as an extension.

Background:

The case arose from FIR No. 16/2018 registered on March 24, 2018, against 18 persons, including appellants Achpal @ Ramswaroop and another, for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 452, 336, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused were arrested on April 8, 2018, and the investigation was required to be completed within 90 days as per Section 167(2) CrPC due to the serious nature of charges (punishable with death or life imprisonment).

Key Events and Controversy:

On July 3, 2018, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of a petition seeking fair investigation with a direction that a gazetted police officer (not below Additional Superintendent of Police) conduct the investigation and submit the report within two months. On July 5, 2018, a charge sheet was filed by a police officer lower in rank, contravening the High Court’s order, leading the Magistrate to return the charge sheet for compliance.

By the expiry of the 90-day period on July 7, 2018, no charge sheet was officially before the Magistrate. The accused applied for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. Both the Magistrate and the Rajasthan High Court denied bail, reasoning that the High Court’s order effectively extended the investigation period.

Supreme Court’s Analysis:

The Supreme Court, in a detailed judgment by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, examined the legislative history and purpose of Section 167 CrPC, underscoring the provision’s protective intent to prevent indefinite detention during investigation. The Court reiterated established precedent, particularly Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001), which affirms that an accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail if investigation is not completed within the prescribed period.

The Court held:

1. The filing of the charge sheet on July 5, 2018, was invalid as it did not comply with the High Court’s direction regarding the rank of the investigating officer.

2. Since no valid charge sheet was before the Magistrate by the 90th day, the accused had an absolute right to be released on bail.

3. The High Court’s order of July 3, 2018, recording the Public Prosecutor’s submission for further investigation by a gazetted officer, could not be construed as an extension of the statutory investigation period.

4. The CrPC does not empower any court or authority to extend the investigation period beyond the fixed 90 days except under special enactments like TADA or MCOCA, which specifically provide for such extensions.

5. Mere submissions by the Public Prosecutor before the High Court cannot substitute a formal order granting extension.

6. The accused are entitled to be admitted to bail on furnishing appropriate sureties, and this does not prevent their arrest or re-arrest on cogent grounds later.

The Court emphasized that the Magistrate must consider custody applications based on investigation material within the stipulated period and cannot allow detention merely to facilitate ongoing investigation.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing immediate admission of the appellants to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on conditions deemed appropriate by the trial court. The judgment affirms the accused’s right to default bail in the absence of a valid charge sheet within the statutory time and curtails misuse of procedural delays to prolong detention.

Significance:

This judgment clarifies the non-extendable nature of investigation timelines under CrPC Section 167(2) and protects the fundamental liberty of accused persons against prolonged custody without formal charges. It curbs judicial or executive attempts to circumvent mandatory investigation periods by informal orders or submissions. The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s consistent stand on safeguarding individual rights during criminal investigations.

Statutory provisions

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 167(2), 173(8); Indian Penal Code Sections 143, 341, 323, 452, 336, 302, 149.

Achpal @ Ramswaroop v. State of Rajasthan (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1246569