Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State Of Assam
- Bench: Justices D Gupta And C Pant
- Appellant: Rakesh Kumar Paul
- Respondent: State of Assam And Anr.
Issue
- I) Is Bail an absolute right ?
- II) Personal Liberty
- III) Default Bail
- IV) What is the m aximum period of detention ?
Facts
• The provisions under Section 167(2) of CrPc allows the detention of a person for 90 days if the crime committed involves the imprisonment of not less than 10 years.
• The petitioner had filed for a regular bail in this case under section 439 of CrPc.
• The bail petition under this was rejected by the court on the grounds that the petitioner had to complete his custody of 90 days.
Petitioner's And Respondent's Contentions:
• The petitioner was arrested and taken into custody under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The state, however, said that since the crime would result in imprisonment of not less than 10 years, the petitioner was taken into custody for 90 days and thus the petitioner filed a 'regular bail' which was rejected.
• The petitioner moved to the SC where the counsel representing the case argued that the petitioner did not apply for 'default bail' on or before a particular date whereby his right got extinguished upon the filing of the charge sheet.
Judgement
The court held that the petitioner was to be awarded 'default bail' based on the facts and the circumstances of the case and set aside the order of the High Court.
Paragraphs
Quoted as such - "It may be mentioned that learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the extended period of 90 days for filing a charge sheet would not apply to the petitioner since he is not covered by the provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and therefore the maximum sentence that could be awarded to him would be 7 years under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This argument of desperation is recorded only to be summarily rejected. Even if the petitioner is not within the purview of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 he is certainly not outside the purview of the PC Act and can be prosecuted and punished for a violation of Section 13(1) thereof. There is absolutely no cogent reason for excluding the petitioner from the rigours of the PC Act as amended by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
The petitioner is held entitled to the grant of ‘default bail’ on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. The Trial Judge should release the petitioner on ‘default bail’ on such terms and conditions as may be reasonable. However, we make it clear that this does not prohibit or otherwise prevent the arrest or re-arrest of the petitioner on cogent grounds in respect of the subject charge and upon arrest or re-arrest, the petitioner is entitled to petition for grant of regular bail which application should be considered on its own merit. We also make it clear that this will not impact on the arrest of the petitioner in any other case."
