Don’t Seek Extension Of Time For Investigation At Last Moment, Accused Will Get Right To Default Bail: SC
Investigating agencies should not seek extension of time for investigation at the last moment, as doing so may result in the accused gaining the right to default bail
⚖️ Principle:
“Do not seek extension of investigation time at the last moment — it gives the accused the right to default bail.”
🔹 Legal Background
Under Section 167(2) of the CrPC (now carried forward in BNSS 2023 with similar structure), when a person is arrested and investigation is not completed within the prescribed time:
60 days (for offences punishable with less than 10 years), or
90 days (for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of at least 10 years),
👉 The accused becomes entitled to "default bail" (also called statutory bail) if:
The charge sheet is not filed within the prescribed period, and
The accused applies for bail before the charge sheet is filed.
🔹 What the Supreme Court Has Said
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that:
Delay by the police/prosecution in filing a charge sheet or seeking extension cannot deprive the accused of default bail.
Seeking an extension at the last moment (i.e., on or just before the 60th or 90th day) without justified cause or prior application gives the accused the legal right to be released on default bail.
🔹 Case Law Summary
1. Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67
The Court held that the right to default bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 once the statutory period lapses.
It cannot be defeated by belated filing or last-minute extensions.
2. M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485
It was held that once the accused avails the right of default bail before the filing of the charge sheet, the right cannot be defeated later by hurriedly filing the final report.
3. Fakhrey Alam v. State of UP, (2021) 3 SCC 576
The Court criticized investigating agencies for waiting until the last day to seek extensions.
It emphasized that the right to default bail is not a favour but a statutory and constitutional right.
4. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602
The Court clearly laid down that extensions of time under special statutes (like TADA or UAPA) must follow strict compliance.
Delay in seeking extension, or not giving the accused an opportunity to oppose it, vitiates the extension and grants the right to default bail.
🔹 Why Last-Moment Extensions Are Problematic
Violates the Accused’s Right under Article 21
Prolonged incarceration without justification is illegal once the time limit ends.
Defeats Purpose of Section 167(2)
The provision is meant to push investigators to act diligently and avoid delays.
Encourages Abuse
If police routinely delay until the last day, courts become mere rubber stamps, defeating fair process.
Undermines Judicial Scrutiny
Last-moment requests don’t allow courts or accused sufficient time to examine or contest the extension.
🔹 Practical Legal Position
| Day | Action Required |
|---|---|
| Day 1 | Arrest made |
| By Day 59 or 89 | Charge sheet must be filed or extension sought with reasons |
| Day 60/90 | If neither is done, accused can apply for default bail |
| After Day 60/90 | Filing charge sheet doesn’t defeat bail if application was earlier |
🔹 Conclusion
The Supreme Court has made it clear:
“The right to default bail is not just statutory but is part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.”
Investigating officers must be proactive and timely in their investigations.
Last-minute extensions or delay tactics do not override the accused’s right to be released if statutory time has lapsed.
🔹 Suggested Judicial Conduct
Courts should:
Not grant routine extensions unless justified and filed in time.
Ensure the accused is given an opportunity to oppose the extension.
Grant default bail where requirements are not strictly met by the prosecution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments