M. RAVINDRAN versus THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

M. RAVINDRAN versus THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

Once an accused files an application for bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC (read with Section 36A(4) NDPS Act where applicable) after expiry of the statutory investigation period and offers to furnish bail, he is deemed to have availed of the indefeasible right to default bail; prosecution cannot frustrate that right by subsequently filing a chargesheet/additional complaint or seeking extension of time, and the Court must release the accused on bail promptly subject to compliance with bail directions and Explanation I where the accused fails to furnish bail.

Parties
Appellant/accused: M. Ravindran; Respondent/complainant: The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Cancelling Bail
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and Trial Court bail order restored
Legal Topics
Default Bail, Section 167(2) Cr PC, Section 36 A(4) NDPS Act, Article 21 of the Constitution, NDPS Special Court Procedure
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Default Bail Section 167(2) Cr PC Section 36 A(4) NDPS Act Article 21 of the Constitution NDPS Special Court Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. Ravindran

Appellant/accused

The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Respondent/complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Cancelling Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is extinguished by subsequent filing of an additional complaint/chargesheet by the prosecution after the accused has filed an application for default bail
  2. 2 Whether entitlement to default bail depends on time of filing the bail application or time of disposal of that application

Ratio Decidendi

Once an accused files an application for bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC (read with Section 36A(4) NDPS Act where applicable) after expiry of the statutory investigation period and offers to furnish bail, he is deemed to have availed of the indefeasible right to default bail; prosecution cannot frustrate that right by subsequently filing a chargesheet/additional complaint or seeking extension of time, and the Court must release the accused on bail promptly subject to compliance with bail directions and Explanation I where the accused fails to furnish bail.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and Trial Court bail order restored

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 21.11.2019 set aside
  • Judgment and order of the Special Court granting bail to the appellant in Crl.M.P. No.131 of 2019 confirmed