The Supreme Court clarified that 90-day default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only to offences with a minimum punishment of 10 years.

The Delhi High Court granted default bail to Rajeev Sharma after 60 days under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) as the investigation was incomplete. Sharma was charged with an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 that was punishable by imprisonment up to 14 years but did not carry a minimum punishment. The State argued that the applicable provision was Section 167(2)(a)(i) for default bail within 90 days.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, relying on Rakesh Kumar Paul v State of Assam (2017). The judges reiterated that the 90-day limit applies only when a minimum 10-year sentence is prescribed. For all other offences, the 60-day period was valid.

State (NCT) of Delhi v Rajeev Sharma

3 April 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 456 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(4)

Bench: Justices B.M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale

Key Phrases: Default bail—Section 167(2)(a)(i) 90 days—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 167(2)(a)(ii) 60 days—minimum punishment of 10 years—Rakesh Kumar Paul

Read the judgement here.

Case comment:

In Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam1it was held,

“In the context of the word “punishable” occurring in clause

(i) and the meaning attached to this word taken from several dictionaries, this Court held in Bhupinder Singh [Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 277: (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 101] that where a minimum and maximum sentence is prescribed, both are imposable depending upon the facts of the case. Therefore, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment that may extend up to or beyond or including 10 years, then the period available for completing investigations would be 90 days before the provision for “default bail” kicks in. It was said in para 15 of the Report: (SCC p. 282) “15. Where minimum and maximum sentences are prescribed, both are imposable depending on the facts of the cases. It is 1 (2017) 15 SCC 67 for the court, after recording conviction, to impose appropriate sentence. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that only the minimum sentence is imposable and not the maximum sentence. Merely because minimum sentence is provided that does not mean that the sentence imposable is only the minimum sentence.”

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Do not copy the content of this website.

Terms And condition

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.