A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma, Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2021 (Supreme Court, 3 April 2025) examines whether the phrase “imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years” in proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. embraces offences which prescribe only a maximum sentence of greater than ten years but contain no statutory minimum. The appellant State challenged the High Court’s grant of statutory/default bail to the respondent, who was accused under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with Section 120B IPC, on the ground that investigation had not been completed within sixty days.

The Supreme Court reiterated the binding ratio of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam and later M. Ravindran, holding that the statutory phrase must be read to refer to offences which are statutorily punishable with a minimum of ten years i.e., the words “not less than” impose a minimum threshold. Where the statute prescribes only a maximum (for example, Section 3 OSA prescribing up to 14 years but no minimum), the offence falls outside the clause (i) category and thus attracts the sixty-day default-bail regime under proviso (a)(ii). On the facts, since the investigation exceeded sixty days, default bail was properly granted by the High Court.

Keywords: Statutory bail; default bail; Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.; not less than ten years; Official Secrets Act, 1923; minimum vs. maximum sentence.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal concerns statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. when investigation exceeds the statutory limits (90 days or 60 days depending on punishment). The respondent was arrested on 14.09.2020 in respect of an FIR under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, with Section 120B IPC added during investigation; the investigation was carried out by the Special Cell, Delhi Police. Multiple bail applications were rejected by subordinate courts. On 14.11.2020 the accused sought release under Section 167(2) on the ground that sixty days had expired; that petition was dismissed but the magistrate observed statutory-bail timing issues tied to the date of remand.

The State filed revision; while pending, the accused filed a fresh Section 167(2) petition which too was dismissed. The High Court, in Criminal Revision, granted bail; the State appealed to the Supreme Court. The determinative legal question narrowed to statutory construction: does clause (i) to proviso (a) “ninety days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years” apply to offences where only a maximum (say 14 years) is prescribed and no minimum is statutorily fixed? The Supreme Court held that the words “not less than” must be read in their natural meaning to denote a statutory minimum threshold; consequently where only a maximum is prescribed (no minimum), the offence does not attract the 90-day window but is governed by the 60-day period. The Court applied and followed the three-judge ratio in Rakesh Kumar Paul and the subsequent follow-up in M. Ravindran, thereby confirming the High Court’s grant of default bail on the facts.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The FIR (No. 230/2020) was registered on 13.09.2020 at Special Cell, Delhi alleging offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923; Section 120B IPC was added during investigation. The respondent was arrested on 14.09.2020. Initial bail applications before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and then the ASJ were dismissed (orders dated 28.09.2020 and 19.10.2020 respectively), and subsequent regular bail efforts failed. On 14.11.2020 an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was moved asserting the charge-sheet had not been filed within sixty days of arrest; this petition was dismissed but the magistrate observed the statutory-bail clock must be assessed from remand. The State filed a revision before the ASJ on 15.11.2020; the accused filed a fresh Section 167(2) petition on the same day which was dismissed on 16.11.2020. The accused then obtained relief from the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision (CRLRP No. 363/2020) which granted default bail. The State appealed to this Court. The factual matrix is narrow and confined to dates of arrest, periods of custody, and the statutory classification of the alleged offences for bail-timing purposes.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the expression “imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years” in proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. includes offences which prescribe only a maximum punishment of more than ten years but do not prescribe any statutory minimum term?

ii. Whether on the facts (investigation not completed within sixty days) the respondent was entitled to default/statutory bail under proviso (a)(ii) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The State contended that an offence carrying a maximum punishment up to 14 years (as Section 3 OSA does) falls within the ambit of clause (i) because the phrase “punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years” should be read with reference to the maximum sentence that the offence may attract. The State argued a purposive reading favouring longer investigative duration for serious offences would support treating any offence with a possible sentence ≥10 years as a 90-day matter. This approach, the State urged, prevents premature default bail in grave security cases.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Counsel for the respondent argued that clause (i) contemplates offences which are statutorily punishable with a minimum of ten years the words “not less than” operate as a legislative threshold. Where the statute prescribes only a maximum term (for example up to 14 years) and no minimum, the offence falls into the “any other offence” category, attracting the 60-day limit; hence, the respondent became entitled to bail when the investigation exceeded sixty days. Reliance was placed on the three-judge decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul and subsequent authority.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal. Construing the proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2), the Court held the ordinary meaning of “not less than” must be given effect: it denotes an express minimum fixed by statute. The Court applied and followed the reasoning in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (three-judge Bench) which interpreted “punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years” to mean offences where the statute itself prescribes a minimum of ten years (or above).

The Court observed that where the statutory provision provides a range (minimum and maximum) the sentencing court chooses within that range at conviction; but Section 167(2) operates at investigative/detention stage and must be classified by the statutory prescription (presence or absence of a minimum). The Court therefore rejected the State’s submission that a mere maximum of 14 years should attract the 90-day period.

Applying this principle to the present facts, Section 3 OSA prescribes maximum imprisonment up to 14 years without any statutory minimum and Section 5 OSA prescribes maximum up to three years. As such, the charges did not fall under clause (i). Investigation exceeding sixty days entitled the accused to default bail under clause (ii). The Court noted consistency with M. Ravindran and held the High Court correctly granted bail, also directing expeditious continuation of the trial in the trial court.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is that the words “imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years” in proviso (a)(i) must be read as referring to offences which are statutorily punishable with a minimum imprisonment of ten years or more. In other words, the 90-day investigative limit applies only where the legislative enactment prescribes “not less than ten years” (or a comparable statutory minimum). If the statute prescribes only a maximum sentence exceeding ten years but is silent on minimum sentencing, such an offence is governed by the sixty-day ceiling and the accused becomes entitled to default bail after sixty days if the investigation remains incomplete. The Court grounded this rule on textual plain meaning, the sentencing architecture (where minimums bind sentencing courts), and prior precedent in Rakesh Kumar Paul (majority).

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed, obiter, that the legislature can — if it so intends — prescribe minimum sentences which would change the statutory-bail calculus; the balance between investigative needs and personal liberty is a legislative choice. The judgment emphasized that the statutory scheme for default bail cannot be expanded by judicial gloss beyond textual boundaries; the remedy for perceived legislative gaps lies with Parliament. The Court also underscored the importance of expeditious trial and directed the trial court to proceed promptly, noting the delay in adjudication of the appeal and the interlocutory history.

c. GUIDELINES

• The classification for Section 167(2) (90 vs 60 days) must be determined by statutory prescription of punishment — specifically, whether a minimum of ten years is prescribed.

• Offences with only a maximum term (even when >10 years) fall within the “any other offence” category (sixty days).

• Courts should not expand the scope of proviso (a)(i) by equating a high maximum with a statutory minimum.

• Where default bail is granted, the trial court must frame charge and proceed expeditiously; interim bail does not bar trial continuation.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reaffirms a textualist and precedent-consistent position: the phrase “not less than ten years” imposes a statutory-minimum requirement for the 90-day investigatory period under Section 167(2). Practically, this decision protects the liberty of accused persons charged under statutes that prescribe significant maximum sentences but no minimum floor, by limiting executive detention to sixty days absent charge-sheeting.

For prosecutors and law enforcement dealing with national-security or state-offence statutes, the ruling signals that where Parliament intends to deny the shorter default-bail protection for serious offences, it must expressly enact a statutory minimum sentence. The Court balanced the competing interests investigative exigencies vs. personal liberty by adhering to statutory language and established precedent (Rakesh Kumar Paul, M. Ravindran). On litigation strategy, defence counsel should scrutinize statutory language to press for default bail where only maximum penalties exist, while prosecution should be mindful to complete investigations within the statutory timeline or seek appropriate statutory amendments if a longer period is intended.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67; [2017] 8 SCR 785.

2. M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2020; [2020] 12 SCR 915.

3. State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 617 : 2025 INSC 456 (present judgment).

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2).

2. Official Secrets Act, 1923, Sections 3, 4, 5.

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B.