The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the practice of delaying default bail applications by trial courts until the investigating agency submits a charge sheet must be firmly discouraged.
A division bench comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray stated:
"Some courts keep the application for ‘default bail’ pending for some days so that in the meantime a charge sheet is submitted. While such a practice both on the part of the prosecution as well as some courts must be very strongly and vehemently discouraged, we reiterate that no subterfuge should be resorted to, to defeat the indefeasible right of the accused for ‘default bail’ during the interregnum when the statutory period for filing the charge sheet or challan expires and the submission of the charge sheet or challan in court."
Background of the Case
The case pertains to Rajiv Mondal @ Rajib, who was arrested on March 17, 2024, under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). He was accused of possessing 150 bottles of Phensedyl cough syrup containing codeine phosphate.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Amends Rules: Single Judges to Hear Most Bail Applications
On the 84th day following his arrest, the investigating agency submitted a charge sheet but without the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report of the seized substance. His bail plea was rejected by the trial court on September 5, 2024—172 days after his arrest.
On the 179th day, he moved the Calcutta High Court seeking bail. Later, on October 3, 2024, the investigating officer filed a supplementary charge sheet, this time including the FSL report, which confirmed the presence of narcotics in the seized goods.
Legal Arguments and Court's Observations
The petitioner's counsel argued that his bail application was already pending when the supplementary charge sheet was filed. Under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, an accused is entitled to bail upon the expiry of 90 or 60 days, as applicable. Further, Section 187(9) of BNSS requires the investigating officer to justify any extension of the investigation beyond six months from the date of arrest.
The petitioner contended that regardless of when he applied for bail, once 180 days had elapsed, the court was obligated to inform him of his right to statutory bail if he was prepared to furnish a bail bond. However, this was not done.
The court highlighted that on the 181st day after the petitioner’s arrest, there was no valid charge sheet since it lacked the chemical report. The bench raised a crucial question:
"Should statutory bail be granted to the accused person on the basis of his pending application if the charge sheet has not been filed within the statutory period?"
The High Court clarified that a charge sheet in an NDPS case must be accompanied by a chemical report. Since the FSL report was only filed on October 3, 2024, the charge sheet filed before that was incomplete.
The bench emphasized:
"In matters of personal liberty, we cannot and should not be too technical. Whether the accused makes a written application for ‘default bail’ or an oral application is of no consequence. The court concerned must deal with such an application by considering the statutory requirements."
Relying on precedent set in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) and M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021), the court reiterated that the right to default bail is integral to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. If an accused applies for bail before the expiry of 180 days and the statutory period lapses during the pendency of that application, the court must grant bail.
The bench further noted:
"The right to personal liberty is probably the most valuable fundamental right after the right to life. If there be any confusion in any matter touching personal liberty, the court should lean in favor of protecting such a right rather than negating it."
The High Court granted bail to Rajiv Mondal @ Rajib, directing his release on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000, with two sureties of like amount. The conditions imposed included:
Read also:- Supreme Court: Liberal Approach Essential in Condoning Delay When Case Merits Require Examination
- Regular court appearances on scheduled dates.
- No intimidation of witnesses or tampering with evidence.
- Restriction from leaving the jurisdiction of Bagdah Police Station, except for attending court proceedings.
- Mandatory fortnightly reporting to the local police station.
The court also clarified that failure to comply with these conditions without justifiable cause could result in bail cancellation.
Case Reference:
- Case Name: Rajiv Mondal @ Rajib v. The State of West Bengal
- Case No.: CRM (NDPS) 1509 of 2024
- Judgment Date: March 20, 2025
