FACTS

On November 2, 1974, Lakshmi Brahman and Naval Garg surrendered before a Magistrate in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. They were taken into custody on suspicion of having committed murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and the investigation into the case was then in progress. The investigating officer failed to submit a charge sheet against them within the statutory period of 60 days as contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it stood prior to its amendment in 1978. On January 1, 1975, the accused applied to the Magistrate for bail. The Magistrate rejected their application on the ground that the allegations against them were serious and remanded them to custody. The accused then filed a revision petition in the High Court of Allahabad under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court allowed the revision petition and directed the Magistrate to release the accused on bail. The High Court granted them bail on February 15, 1975 on the ground that the right to bail is a fundamental right and that the accused were entitled to be released on bail if the investigating officer was unable to submit a charge sheet within the statutory period. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the order of the High Court in the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the accused are entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) once the investigating officer fails to submit a charge sheet within the statutory period of 60 days?
Whether the Right to Bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a substantive right or a procedural right?
Whether the Right to Bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is subject to any conditions?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

The petitioners in this case contended that they were entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) because the investigating officer had failed to submit a charge sheet against them within the statutory period of 60 days.

They argued that Section 167(2) of the CrPC provides that:

“When any person is in custody under this Chapter and the period of the investigation has expired or extended under sub-section (1), and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for keeping him in custody, he shall order him to be released on bail or on his own bond, with or without sureties.”

They further contended that the Right to Bail is a fundamental right and that the investigating officer’s failure to submit a charge sheet within the statutory period is a ground for granting bail and that therefore the Magistrate was bound to release them on bail. They also contended that the Magistrate’s order rejecting their application for bail was illegal and that the High Court’s order granting them bail was correct.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents in this case contended that the petitioners were not entitled to be released on bail because the allegations against them were serious. They argued that the petitioners had been charged with murder, which is a serious offense, and that therefore they should not be released on bail.

They also argued that the petitioners had not made out a case for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Section 439 of the CrPC provides that:

“The High Court or Court of Session may grant bail to a person accused of, or convicted of, a non-bailable offence, if such person is prepared to furnish bail in such amount as the Court may fix, and also furnish two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court.”

They argued that the petitioners had not made out a case for bail because they had not shown that they were not likely to abscond or commit any other offense if released on bail. They also argued that the petitioners had not shown that they would not interfere with the investigation or the trial of the case if released on bail.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court in this case held that

The investigating officer is under a statutory obligation to submit a charge sheet within 60 days of the arrest of an accused person.
an accused person is entitled to be released on bail if the investigating officer fails to submit a charge sheet within the statutory period of 60 days.
an accused person who has been in custody for a period of 90 days or more without being charged with a cognizable offence is entitled to be released on bail, irrespective of the nature of the offence.
The Magistrate has no jurisdiction to remand an accused person to custody after the expiry of the statutory period of 60 days.
The object of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is to ensure that an accused is not unnecessarily detained in custody.
The Right to Bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the State cannot deprive an accused person of this right without a valid reason.
The Right to Bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a substantive right and not a procedural right.
The Right to Bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not subject to any conditions.

Therefore, the Supreme Court after hearing the arguments of both the parties upheld the High Court’s order of granting bail to the accused and held that the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

CONCLUSION

This case established the principle that an accused person is entitled to be released on bail if the investigating officer fails to submit a charge sheet within the statutory period of 60 days. This principle has been widely cited in subsequent cases and has been used to uphold the right of accused persons to be released on bail even in cases where the allegations against them are serious.

The judgment has also been significant in terms of its impact on the criminal justice system in India. The judgment has helped to reduce the number of people who are detained in custody for long periods of time before they are charged with a crime. This has helped to reduce the burden on the prison system and has also helped to ensure that accused persons are not deprived of their liberty for an unreasonable period of time.

The judgment has also been significant in terms of its impact on the rights of accused persons. The judgment has helped to establish the right of accused persons to be released on bail, even in cases where the allegations against them are serious. This has helped to ensure that accused persons are not denied their right to liberty without due process of law.

The decision has been criticized by some commentators. They have argued that the decision has led to an increase in the number of acquittals in criminal cases. Others have argued that the decision has made it difficult for the police to investigate serious crimes. Despite the criticism, the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lakshmi Brahman and Another remains an important precedent in Indian law. The decision has helped to ensure that accused persons are not unnecessarily detained in custody and that they have a right to be released on bail.

written by Aditi Ananya intern under legal vidhiya