Default Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC: The 'Incomplete' Chargesheet and the Ninety-Day Period
On 4 March 2024, Farhan was arrested in FIR No. 88/2024 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. Section 467 IPC carries imprisonment up to ten years; the remaining offences carry up to seven years. He was remanded to judicial custody the next day and has remained in custody since. On 31 May 2024 the investigating officer filed a report under Section 173(2) CrPC styled a 'preliminary final report'. It named Farhan and two others and annexed 214 pages of documents, but recorded that the FSL report on four seized mobile phones and the bank details of two accounts were awaited, and that three co-accused were absconding. The Magistrate took the report on file, declined to take cognizance because the file was 'incomplete', and adjourned to 14 June. On 3 June, Farhan applied for default bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC. A supplementary chargesheet was filed on 20 July. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail on the ground that the 31 May report was not a valid chargesheet.
1. Which statutory period applies to Farhan, and when did it expire? Justify the computation.
Read the worked answer
The applicable period turns on the punishment prescribed, not on the label of the offence or the number of offences alleged. Under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC, the outer limit is 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; in every other case it is 60 days.
Section 467 IPC prescribes imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to ten years. Read with Section 120B, the investigation therefore attracts the 90-day period even though Sections 420, 468 and 471 carry only seven years. The contrary argument - that because the maximum is ten years and not more, the 60-day period applies - was addressed in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017), where the Supreme Court emphasised the statutory language and cautioned against extending the 90-day category beyond its terms; offences punishable up to seven years fall outside it.
Computation. The period runs from the date of arrest. From 4 March 2024, 90 days expire on 2 June 2024. The report of 31 May 2024 was therefore filed within time, so prima facie no right had accrued by 2 June.
The identical 60/90-day split is retained in Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, so the analysis is unaffected by the new Code.
2. Farhan argues that the 31 May report was not a 'chargesheet' because investigation was incomplete and cognizance was not taken. Evaluate.
Read the worked answer
Both limbs fail.
(i) Cognizance. In Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2018) the Supreme Court held that the right to default bail is extinguished by the filing of a chargesheet within the statutory period, even where the Magistrate has not yet taken cognizance. The trigger is the filing, not cognizance; otherwise the investigating agency would be at the mercy of the court's listing.
(ii) Completeness. A chargesheet need not be exhaustive. Section 173(8) expressly permits further investigation, and a supplementary chargesheet may follow; the pendency of an FSL report or bank details does not render the report a nullity (CBI v. R.S. Pai (2002) on the sufficiency of a report under Section 173(2)). What matters is whether the report is a genuine final report that discloses the offence, identifies the accused and sets out the evidence.
Here it names Farhan and the co-accused, annexes 214 pages and states the allegations. That investigation continues against absconding co-accused does not invalidate a report filed against those already arrested. The Magistrate's observation that the file was 'incomplete' is an administrative remark, not a judicial finding that the report is a non-est document.
Since the report was filed within 90 days, no indefeasible right accrued on 2 June, and the application of 3 June fails.
3. Suppose the court finds the 31 May report invalid. What then is the effect of the supplementary chargesheet of 20 July, and what should the Magistrate do?
Read the worked answer
The right to default bail accrues on the expiry of the statutory period and becomes indefeasible once the accused applies for it and is prepared to furnish bail. A chargesheet filed thereafter cannot take the right away; the accused must be released, though he remains liable to be dealt with under the ordinary bail provisions (Rakesh Kumar Paul; Sanjay Dutt v. State, 1994).
If the 31 May report were held invalid - for instance because it was unsigned, filed in the wrong court, or disclosed no offence at all - Farhan's right crystallised on 2 June 2024. His application of 3 June preceded the supplementary chargesheet of 20 July, so the right could not be defeated by it. The Magistrate would be obliged to release him on bail on such terms as are imposed, and the prosecution's remedy thereafter lies in an application for cancellation under Section 439(2), which requires proof of supervening misconduct or abuse.
On the present facts, however, the 31 May report is valid and the application fails. The Magistrate must then consider regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 on the ordinary considerations - seriousness of the offence, risk of flight, tampering with evidence and witnesses, and the period already undergone.