A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence authoritatively settles the scope, nature, and enforceability of the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Supreme Court examined whether such a right, once accrued and invoked by the accused upon expiry of the statutory investigation period of 180 days, can be defeated by the prosecution through the subsequent filing of an additional complaint before disposal of the bail application.

The Court firmly reaffirmed that the right to default bail is not a procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 21. It held that the accused is deemed to have “availed of” the right the moment an application for default bail is filed along with willingness to furnish bail, and not when actual release occurs. Any contrary interpretation would legitimise illegal detention and permit prosecutorial manipulation.

The judgment harmonises prior conflicting interpretations arising from Sanjay Dutt, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, and Uday Mohanlal Acharya, while emphatically preferring an interpretation that protects personal liberty. It further cautioned courts and prosecutors against dilatory tactics that undermine statutory mandates. The ruling strengthens due process, reinforces investigative accountability, and elevates default bail from a statutory right to a constitutional imperative.

Keywords: Default Bail; Section 167(2) CrPC; Article 21; NDPS Act; Indefeasible Right; Personal Liberty

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment emerges from a recurring constitutional tension between investigative convenience and personal liberty. The NDPS Act, owing to its stringent framework, permits extended detention during investigation, but such extension is carefully conditioned by statutory safeguards. Section 36A(4) NDPS Act modifies Section 167(2) CrPC by extending the permissible investigation period to 180 days, with a further extension to one year only upon a reasoned report by the Public Prosecutor.

The background of the dispute lies in prosecutorial attempts across jurisdictions to neutralise default bail by filing charge-sheets or additional complaints after expiry of the statutory period but before formal grant of bail. This practice raised serious constitutional concerns regarding arbitrary detention and erosion of Article 21.

The Supreme Court, in earlier decisions such as Uday Mohanlal Acharya and Rakesh Kumar Paul, had emphasised that default bail is an indefeasible right. However, divergent interpretations of the phrase “if not already availed of” in Sanjay Dutt created judicial uncertainty.

This case presented an opportunity to conclusively determine whether the prosecution can frustrate the right by strategic timing and whether “availing” the right requires actual release or mere invocation. The judgment therefore stands as a doctrinal clarification with far-reaching consequences for criminal procedure and constitutional liberties.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant was arrested on 04.08.2018 for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act. He was remanded to judicial custody on the same date. Under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act, the investigating agency was required to complete investigation within 180 days, excluding the date of remand.

The statutory period expired on 31.01.2019. No application seeking extension of time was filed by the Public Prosecutor within this period, nor was any final report or complaint submitted. On 01.02.2019 at 10:30 a.m., the appellant filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.

During the hearing of the bail application, and after arguments were substantially concluded, the prosecution filed an additional complaint at 4:25 p.m. on the same day. The Trial Court granted default bail, holding that the right had already accrued and could not be defeated by subsequent filing.

The High Court of Madras reversed this order, reasoning that since the additional complaint was filed before disposal of the bail application, the right stood extinguished. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is extinguished by subsequent filing of an additional complaint?
ii. Whether “availing of” default bail requires actual release or merely filing of a bail application?
iii. Whether continued detention after expiry of the statutory period violates Article 21?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Appellant submitted that the statutory period had conclusively expired and no extension was sought under Section 36A(4). Reliance was placed on Uday Mohanlal Acharya, asserting that the right crystallises upon filing the bail application. It was argued that subsequent filing of an additional complaint is legally irrelevant and constitutionally impermissible. Continued detention was contended to be illegal and violative of Article 21.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Respondent contended that default bail can be availed only upon actual release. Since the additional complaint was filed before disposal of the bail application, the right stood extinguished. Reliance was placed on Explanation I to Section 167(2) to justify continued custody.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Trial Court. It held that Section 167(2) must be interpreted purposively to protect liberty. The Court rejected the High Court’s formalistic reasoning and clarified that once the statutory period expires, the Court lacks jurisdiction to authorise further detention unless the accused fails to furnish bail.

The Court emphasised that permitting the prosecution to defeat default bail by filing an additional complaint would convert illegal custody into legal detention. Such an approach would undermine investigative discipline and constitutional guarantees.

The appellant was held entitled to default bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court, including surrender of passport and cooperation with investigation.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi is that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is deemed to be availed the moment the accused files an application expressing readiness to furnish bail upon expiry of the statutory period. Actual release is not determinative. Any subsequent filing of a charge-sheet or additional complaint does not extinguish this right.

The Court grounded this reasoning in Article 21, holding that detention beyond the statutory period is unconstitutional. It reaffirmed Uday Mohanlal Acharya and harmonised it with Sanjay Dutt by clarifying the meaning of “availed of”.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that magistrates and defence counsel should inform accused persons of their right to default bail immediately upon accrual, especially where the accused belongs to marginalised sections. It also cautioned prosecutors against dilatory tactics aimed at buying time.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Default bail must be granted immediately upon expiry of statutory period if application is filed.
ii. Subsequent filing of charge-sheet or complaint is irrelevant.
iii. Courts must avoid technical interpretations that curtail liberty.
iv. Prosecutors must seek extension strictly within statutory timelines.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment decisively constitutionalises default bail and reinforces judicial accountability in remand jurisprudence. It strengthens procedural fairness and curtails prosecutorial overreach. The ruling is a vital reaffirmation that liberty is the rule and detention the exception, even under stringent special statutes like the NDPS Act.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra
2. Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI
3. Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
3. Constitution of India