Published on: June 15, 2024 10:15 IST
Supreme Court issued a notice in a special leave petition to determine whether a revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), is maintainable against a default bail order passed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The petition challenges a Delhi High Court judgment that dismissed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to surrender.
The Vacation Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih, stated, “Issue notice, returnable on 23rd August, 2024. The issue for consideration in this Special Leave Petition is whether a revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would be maintainable against a default bail order passed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C…There appears to be no decision by this Court on this issue, though there are several judgments of the High Courts.”
The Court also directed that, pending further orders, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No. 306 on the file of Police Station Lajpat Nagar, District South-East, Delhi. Advocate-on-Record Shantwanu Singh appeared for the petitioner.
The Delhi High Court had previously ruled that statutory bail cannot be considered an interlocutory order, as it is a final order releasing the applicant on bail due to the prosecution’s inability to complete the investigation and file the final report within 60 or 90 days. The High Court was addressing a petition challenging an order by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, which had allowed the State’s revision petition and set aside the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order granting statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The High Court noted, “The petitioner herein was claiming statutory bail under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, in my opinion, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate erred in applying the test relevant for considering an application for bail under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., that is, of whether a prima facie case against the applicant had been made out or not. This error has rightly been corrected by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in the impugned order passed on the revision petition filed by the State.”