Default Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC: Sixty or Ninety Days, and the Incomplete Charge-Sheet
On 2 February 2024 an FIR under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC was registered at Gadhinglaj police station alleging that the accused had collected Rs 68 lakh from seventeen depositors and defaulted. The accused was arrested on 10 February 2024 and has remained in judicial custody since. No offence in the FIR carries life imprisonment or ten years; the maximum is seven years. On 11 April 2024 the accused filed an application under Section 167(2) CrPC, which is listed for hearing on 15 April. On 12 April the investigating officer filed a 240-page charge-sheet without the FSL report, stating that investigation was 'kept open', and on 15 April moved to add Section 467 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life.
1. Which period under Section 167(2) CrPC applies, and had the accused acquired the right to release by 11 April 2024?
Read the worked answer
The period is 90 days only where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of not less than ten years; in every other case it is 60 days - Section 167(2)(a)(i) and (ii).
- The FIR alleges Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The maximum punishment among them is seven years. The test is the offence for which the accused was arrested and remanded, not what the police may choose to add later.
- Therefore the applicable period is 60 days from the date of arrest. Excluding the day of arrest, the period expired on 10 April 2024 (February 2024 was a leap year: 19 days of February + 31 of March + 10 of April = 60).
- The right to release under Section 167(2) is not self-executing. It accrues on the expiry of the period and is enforced by an application, and the accused must be prepared to furnish bail.
Conclusion: the right accrued on the expiry of 10 April 2024. The application filed on 11 April 2024 was filed at the earliest moment at which the right existed, and on that date there was no report under Section 173(2) on record.
Caveat to check on the record: if the accused was already on bail in another case, or if a report had in fact been filed earlier and the date is disputed, the computation changes; the court must verify the arrest memo and the remand order before ruling.
2. Does the charge-sheet filed on 12 April 2024, and the later addition of Section 467 IPC, defeat the right that had accrued?
Read the worked answer
No, on two independent grounds.
- The right had crystallised before the report was filed. Once the statutory period expires without a report and the accused applies, the entitlement becomes indefeasible. An application under Section 167(2) must be decided as on the date it was made; a charge-sheet filed the very next day cannot take away a right that had already vested. The subsequent filing only means that the accused, if released, faces trial - not that he must remain in custody.
- The report of 12 April was in terms not a final report. It was filed without the FSL report and with an express request that the investigation be kept open. Whether such a truncated 'preliminary' charge-sheet answers Section 173(2) is a contested question on which courts have taken differing views, but on these facts the controversy does not arise, because of the first ground.
On Section 467 IPC: the addition of a graver offence cannot operate retrospectively to convert a 60-day case into a 90-day case and thereby extinguish a right already accrued.
Contrast: if the charge-sheet had been filed on or before 10 April 2024, there would have been no default on the date of the application, and the application would have failed however incomplete the investigation.
3. What order should the Magistrate pass, what conditions may be imposed, and can bail be cancelled once Section 467 IPC is added?
Read the worked answer
The order should:
- record the computation of the 60-day period from 10 February 2024 to 10 April 2024;
- hold that the accused became entitled to release under Section 167(2) on the sixty-first day;
- direct release on his furnishing a personal bond and surety of a reasonable amount, with conditions permissible under Section 437(3) CrPC:
- appearance before the court on every date of hearing;
- no tampering with evidence and no contact with the seventeen depositors or the investigating officer;
- no departure from Maharashtra without the court's permission;
- surrender of passport.
The order must record that release under Section 167(2) is not an acquittal, does not discharge the accused, and does not arrest the trial; the bond continues to bind him. The conditions must be reasonable and not so onerous as to make the release illusory.
On cancellation after Section 467 IPC is added:
- Bail once granted may be cancelled only on cogent supervening circumstances - misuse of liberty, interference with witnesses, or persistent default in appearance - under Section 437(5) CrPC, or by the Sessions Court/High Court under Section 439(2).
- The mere addition of a graver offence is not, by itself, a supervening circumstance. The prosecution must place material showing that the liberty is being abused.
- The Magistrate may, however, take the gravity of the new offence into account while modifying conditions, and may require more frequent appearance or a higher surety.
- Cancellation of bail cannot be used as a device to undo the statutory right under Section 167(2).