A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Saravanan v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police constitutes a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional and statutory character of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court examined the legality of conditions imposed by the High Court while granting statutory bail, particularly a monetary deposit linked to alleged amounts involved in the offence and an onerous daily reporting requirement. The Court categorically held that default bail is not discretionary but an indefeasible statutory right, accruing to the accused upon failure of the investigating agency to file a charge-sheet within the prescribed period.

The Court clarified that conditions ordinarily relevant to regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. cannot be transplanted into the statutory framework of default bail. Any such condition, especially one compelling deposit of disputed amounts, defeats the legislative intent of Section 167(2) and dilutes the protection of personal liberty under criminal procedure. The judgment draws a clear doctrinal distinction between punitive pre-trial detention and procedural safeguards against investigative delay. By quashing the financial condition and modifying the reporting requirement, the Court reinforced that statutory bail cannot be converted into a tool of coercive recovery or indirect punishment.

This ruling consolidates prior jurisprudence, particularly the principle of “indefeasible right” articulated earlier, and serves as a binding precedent restraining courts from imposing extraneous conditions that frustrate statutory mandates.

Keywords:
Default Bail; Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.; Indefeasible Right; Personal Liberty; Conditions of Bail; Statutory Safeguards

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The judgment emerges from persistent judicial confusion regarding the scope of judicial discretion while granting default bail. The appellant was arrested in connection with an offence under Section 420 IPC and remained in custody beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 167 Cr.P.C.. The failure of the investigating agency to file the final report within time triggered the appellant’s entitlement to statutory bail.

Despite acknowledging this statutory entitlement, the High Court imposed a condition requiring deposit of Rs. 8,00,000/-, drawing justification from an earlier affidavit filed by the appellant’s wife during regular bail proceedings. The High Court also directed the appellant to report daily to the police station at a fixed hour.

The Supreme Court was thus called upon to examine whether courts could impose conditions rooted in regular bail jurisprudence while granting mandatory statutory bail. The case lies at the intersection of procedural safeguards and judicial overreach, raising critical questions about the limits of discretionary power when statutory commands are explicit.

The decision is firmly anchored in the constitutional value of personal liberty, as reflected through criminal procedure. By engaging with the object and purpose of Section 167, the Court reaffirmed that investigative delay cannot be compensated by judicially engineered conditions. The ruling situates default bail not as a benevolent concession but as a legislative check on State power.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant was arrested on 31 January 2020 in Crime No. 31 of 2019 for alleged offences under Section 420 IPC and was remanded to judicial custody. He initially sought regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate. During those proceedings, the appellant’s wife filed an affidavit undertaking to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/- out of the alleged amount of Rs. 15,67,338/-. Based on this undertaking, the Magistrate granted bail subject to deposit conditions.

Aggrieved by these conditions, the appellant approached the High Court, which declined interference but granted liberty to seek modification before the Magistrate. Instead, upon completion of more than 101 days in custody without filing of a charge-sheet, the appellant invoked Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. seeking statutory bail.

The Sessions Court rejected the application on the ground of non-compliance with earlier bail conditions. On further challenge, the High Court accepted the statutory entitlement but imposed a fresh condition of deposit of Rs. 8,00,000/- and mandated daily police reporting. A subsequent modification application was also dismissed.

These cumulative orders compelled the appellant to approach the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court’s conditions were contrary to the statutory scheme and judicial precedents governing default bail.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a court can impose a condition of monetary deposit while granting default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.?
ii. Whether conditions attached to regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. can influence statutory bail?
iii. Whether onerous reporting conditions violate the object of statutory bail?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that default bail is a mandatory statutory right and does not depend upon judicial discretion once statutory conditions are satisfied. It was argued that the only requirements under Section 167(2) are expiry of the statutory period, non-filing of the charge-sheet, and readiness to furnish bail.

The appellant relied upon the principle that no additional burden can be imposed that frustrates the right itself. The affidavit filed during regular bail proceedings was argued to be wholly irrelevant to statutory bail. It was further contended that the High Court’s conditions amounted to indirect denial of bail.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State sought to justify the High Court’s order by referring to the earlier undertaking given by the appellant’s wife. It was argued that the condition of deposit was imposed considering the alleged financial loss and the conduct of the accused.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 167(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
ii. Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
iii. Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860

I) JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court categorically held that the High Court committed a grave error in imposing a deposit condition while granting statutory bail. The Court reiterated that default bail flows from legislative command and not judicial discretion.

The Court emphasized that any condition which obstructs or frustrates the enforcement of a statutory right is impermissible. The imposition of a monetary condition was held to be legally unsustainable, irrespective of earlier proceedings.

The daily reporting condition was also held to be excessive and disproportionate. The Court modified it to require cooperation with investigation as and when called.

The appeals were allowed. The impugned conditions were quashed or modified accordingly.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decisively holds that no condition beyond furnishing bail can be imposed while granting default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.. Any attempt to import considerations of recovery, punishment, or compliance from regular bail proceedings is illegal.

Default bail is a safeguard against investigative delay and judicial overreach. The statutory right crystallizes automatically upon fulfillment of conditions and cannot be diluted.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that courts must remain conscious of the difference between discretionary bail and statutory bail. Excessive conditions undermine public confidence in procedural safeguards.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Courts must confine themselves strictly to statutory requirements under Section 167(2).
ii. Monetary or recovery-linked conditions are impermissible.
iii. Reporting conditions must be reasonable and proportionate.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, [2017] 8 SCR 785

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
ii. Indian Penal Code, 1860