Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1994 SC 2623
Hon’ble court observed that the
“thus we find that once the period for ‚the charge-sheet has expired and either no extension of has been granted by the Designated Court or the period of extension has also expired, the accused person would be entitled to move an application for being admitted to bail under sub-section (4) of Section 20 read with Section 167 of the Code and the Designated Court shall release him on bail, if the accused seeks to be so released and furnishes the requisite bail.In our opinion an accused is required to make an application if he wishes to be released on bail on account of the default of the investigating prosecution agency…”
Sanjay Dutt vs State Through C.B.I. Bombay (1994) 5 SCC 410
A five-judge-bench of the Supreme Court clarified the decision of Hitendra Thakur observing that:
- When an application for extension of time and an application for default bail were heard together, no bail could be granted unless the prayer for extension of the period was rejected.
- Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act only required production of the accused before the court in accordance with Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this is how the requirement of notice to the accused before granting extension beyond the prescribed period of 180 days in accordance with the further proviso to clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the TADA Act was to be understood in the Judgment of the Division Bench of Hitendra Thakur. The requirement of such notice to the accused before granting the extension for completing the investigation was not a written notice to the accused giving reasons therein and production of the accused at that time in the court informing him that the question of extension of the period for completing the investigation is being considered, was alone sufficient for the purpose.
- The ‘indefeasible right’ of the accused to be released on bail in accordance with Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan/final-report within the time allowed, as held in Hitendra Thakur was a right which ensured to, and was enforceable by the accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it would not survive or remain enforceable on the challan/final-report being filed.
State vs. Mohd. Asrafat Bhat (1996)1 SCC 432
Hon’ble court reiterated the settled position
“such right (right of default bail) is enforceable only prior to the filing of the charge-sheet. But the accused did not avail himself of the right and charge-sheet in the meantime been filed, his right to obtain statutory bail under Section 167(2) proviso (a) or (b) has been extinguished.”
Mohammed Iqbal Madar and others vs. State of Maharashtra
Hon’ble court held that
“It cannot be held that an accused charged of any offence, including offences under TADA, if released on bail because of the default in completion of the investigation, then no sooner the charge-sheet is filed, the order granting bail to such accused is to be cancelled.For cancelling the bail, the well-settled principles in respect of cancellation of bail have to be made out.”